Talk:Mississippi/Archive 1

Fattest State
No mention of this? http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/215983.html Well, I'll add something about it. Captain America 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, that article says that Washington, D.C. has 22.8% of its children overweight, not Misssissippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.214.207 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

DC is not a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1994, CNN mentioned that Mississippi was the fattest state in the union. Rob (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Federal government's role in Mississippi's fiscal policies"
1) I know nothing about this subject, but the whole section seems to have been written by the same editor with the same markup errors, and has the feel of POV; I worry it was introduced wholesale by someone with an axe to grind. If someone could review it and tell us whether it's NPOV, that would be happy.

2) "Although Mississippi politics is influenced on people who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives with Medicaid and other programs for low-income groups are often cut or eliminated" -- This clause doesn't even parse. Not only that, but I don't know what it's supposed to say in order to rewrite it.

3) "This means that for every $1 dollar Mississippi taxpayers give to the Federal government they get $1.71 back. This means that Mississippi is one of the highest benefactors of the Federal Government." -- This is plainly ridiculous. If A gives B money and B gives double the money back to A, A is not a benefactor of B at all. Perhaps the author did not know what the word "benefactor" means. Marnanel 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. This section is blatently an opinion of the writer. While I respect their opinion and feel it could make for great debate, It does not deserve to be inserted into an article and presented as fact. The whole "liberal" / "conservative" fight should not be thrown into an article of this nature. Everyone has differing opinions about social and fiscal issues, but presenting this long a write up on one subject is out of place, especially when only coming from someone who can't present it from a neutral angle. Cliff B.


 * I agree and have started copy editing, but still don't know what it is trying to say: mostly that Mississippi is a beneficiary of Federal payments - good that someone noticed, but not the appropriate place for the discussion. Retitled it as Mississippi Balance of payments, as that's what it's about.  Will work on it more tomorrow.--Parkwells 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)--Parkwells 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have checked for similar entries on other states and have found none. I do not see the relevance for a state page. I believe it should be deleted in its entirety, but I'll leave that for someone more wikirific than me. -DLM- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.234 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Transportation Section NPOV
The transportation section omits rail, water, and air tranportation. Why??? DCDuring 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I removed your edit as a good faith situation. I cannot speak as to why they are not included except to say that since every article is different, what you may find in an article for one state will not necessarily be found in articles for the rest. That does not, by itself, constitute a neutrality violation, in my opinion. It may simply mean that not enough people know about the subject to include it in the article or it was simply never considered before. As such, I removed your edit because it looked more like a stub within an established article rather than a serious edit. Perhaps with this discussion, however, someone will take the time to add detailed descriptions of those to the article. — CobraWiki ( jabber 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Community
I edited the section for clarity. The prior wording was difficult to follow. The initial portion of the section I removed is quoted here: "Among states with the highest concentration of same-sex couples with children among all same-sex couples, Mississippi ranks number 1 in the nation with 41% of the state's same-sex couples having one or more child." This was changed to: "Of Mississippi’s same-sex couples, 49% have one or more child. This figure is higher in Mississippi than in any other state." prime52 23:50, 2 October 2007
 * You left out the senior citizen citation so I put it back in. Otherwise, good job breaking this subsection down. Remember to sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes ie: ~ Thanks! --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I would LOVE to know where all these gay people are?? They're surely not THAT many. This is the south ya know, I live in this state and know how (mostly older people) discriminates against gays and blacks. 72.171.0.146 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a gay man in Mississippi, I can assure you we are everywhere, even when you don't know it. ;) --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  00:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ^--- Oh, snap! That's frightening!  I kid, I kid.  I was surprised to find out I work with a gay man and a lesbian woman.  Everyone knew and no one treated them any differently.  There was talking behind their back of course by older folks (very little) but even they treated them like normal human beings, even friends.  Maybe because they -are- normal human beings.  Forgot to mention that I'm from Mississippi.  Whoops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.36 (talk • contribs)

Need sections on Music and Writers
Mississippi has generated so much art that it needs separate articles on music and authors.--Parkwells 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you create seperate articles, please leave links to them on my talk page so that the articles can be added to WikiProject Mississippi. Thanks! --  ALLSTAR  echo  01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous Mississippians
Aside from having a top selling book, Kevin Sessums is currently an editor at Allure magazine after spending fourteen years at Vanity Fair magazine in that same capacity. Before joining Vanity Fair, he was executive editor for Andy Warhol’s Interview magazine. His work has also appeared in Elle, Travel + Leisure, Playboy, POZ, Out, and Show People magazines. He is quite notable and his inclusion provides balance. He's been nominated for awards, just because he didn't win them doesn't mean he is notable. Just because he had one book, doesn't mean he isn't notable. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 02:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted you may like this author, so have him listed in the other people from Mississippi. There are many other authors that could be listed here. That is why there is a other people from Mississippi page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are removing someone that has been on this page for months. You can't do that just because you disagree with his degree of notability. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because no one has removed him in months shouldn't mean that he should stay listed as a famous author. Ask any librarian if Kevin Sessums should be listed with Faulkner or Grisham. That is what the List of other people from Mississippi is for. What other editors can review this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what "any librarian" would say or think, there is a reason the list is limited. And now you go and add many more to the list? The in-article notice says to add new entries to List of people from Mississippi. This article is big and this section was designed like it is to keep the size down. Please adhere to the notice. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a reason why this is Wikipedia: anyone can edit, and no one has ownership of an article to say "that name should never be removed". I am the one who added the "not intended to be a complete list" comment you are mentioning. It was added back when I edited both this and the list articles and of course was done to keep the list from getting too long because the list was a mess when I first saw it, but it was not intended to put a stranglehold on others wishing to say one name is more important than another in the list. Nothing about WP says that names in a list cannot or should never be removed. Personally, I like the [|most recent edit] made on the article in this matter. It's a small highlight list, more thna enough names, and if people want ot see more names, that's that the list article is for. — CobraWiki ( jabber 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't need a lecture on WP:OWN as I am fully aware of it. But as someone who has devoted a lot of time to cleaning up this article, to pare it down and such, I'd expect at least discussion on whatever issue that arises, rather than ignoring such notices and then even after being asked about it, continuing to make the list bigger all the while telling me to add Kevin Sessums to List of people from Mississippi. That having been said, I asked for a neutral outsider to have a look at the issue and when he did, he made the current change which you say you like. I believe the change is fair as well. Issue solved. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 05:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Golbez for stepping in and resolving the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

my concern is that these were very powerful indians. Mississippi also has The King of Rock and Roll Elvis Presely and the one of a kind Oprah Winfrey

--76.171.230.103 (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)larisssa domikob

Disambig?
I was a bit surprised that Mississippi the state came up here, not Mississippi River. Shouldn't this be at least a disambiguation page (which is now located at Mississippi (disambiguation))? WP:DAB states: "When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed. When the title usually means one thing but also has other meanings, add disambiguation links to the primary topic's article." At least for me, the River is certainly more notable than the state. I do not see the name to usually apply to the state, but at best see both uses as equally frequent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, change the Washington link to disambiguate to George Washington, and the Kansas link go to the the Kansas river. This is ridiculous.  I could see how a person who lives next to the river in another state could think something idiotic like "The river is far more notable than a piece of land with a mere 3 million or so irrelevant souls in it", but generally, whenever I'm looking for the Mississippi river, I type in "Mississippi river", not "Mississippi". 74.251.26.43 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you to the person who replied to the comment made by Schulz. As a Mississippian, I was taken aback by the statement: "At least for me, the River is certainly more notable than the state." Mississippi takes a lot of heat at times, and perhaps is not always positively portrayed or recognized; and maybe we are not as well-known to the rest of the world (Germany?) as say New York or California, but we are more notable than a river. As the person above mentioned, one would look for Mississippi River or THE Mississippi when attempting to view information about the river. Perhaps we need more users that are actually from Mississippi editing this article. Then again, we probably do not have computers or know how to type, so maybe the river is more notable. Jocelyn48 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

History
Near the end of the section, I've added contemporary numbers about Federal subsidies to the Delta and who they benefit, lack of rural development, out-migration, etc. with source.--Parkwells (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Major Cities
Picayune is probably #9 now... Msjayhawk (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing we don't go on "probably" when writing an encyclopedia. If it can't be proven by a verifiable source, it can't be included. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Charitable contributions
The statement that Mississippians consistently rank as one of the highest per capita in charitable contributions has absolutley nothing to do with the Mississippi economy and should be deleted. I've already gone and deleted it but this heavily flawed Wiki system and corrupt administrators says that its "vandilism" and says I have to have a discussion about it before I can delete it. Which in itself is a waste of time because clearly the only response I'm going to get here is that it should stay on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.47.38 (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to "consensus". Additionally, charitable contributions are related to the Mississippi economy.. one of the poorest states, if not the poorest, gives more of its money to charity than any other state. It speaks volumes to economics and what Mississippians are doing with their money. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 09:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with AllStarEcho. This fact gives insight into the state of Mississippi.--Parkwells (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let them eat their cake. They got not much to live for. yay. they're charitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.162.137 (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

State Tree
Someone screwed with the state tree. I would fix it, but I can't remember what it is and am too lazy to look it up. Odd that I'd take the time to leave this comment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.175.20 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction: Catfish?
Does anyone else find that sentence about catfish production in the introduction a bit odd? I'm going to move it too the economy section. 76.103.120.182 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Health
parts of this article in the health section are misleading... The hot climate and poor nutrition appear to contribute to problems with weight. For three years in a row, more than 30 percent of Mississippi's residents have been classified as obese. In the most recent study (2006), 22.8 percent of the state's children were classified as obese. Mississippi has the highest rate of obesity of any U.S. state.[

Of course poor nutrition is a cause for obesity, but hot climate? Does it cause people only living in Mississippi to be obese? What about people in Florida, Alabama, and other typically "hot" states? (Aurriean (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
 * What do the usual suspects say? — Becksguy (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? What is the relationship between climate and obesity?   The reason people are obsese in those states is due to a combination of factors intersecting with the cuisine of the Southern United States.  Some experts have speculated that these types of diets, which include high-calorie lards and fats, once supported the energy demands of workers in physically-intensive agricultural, industrial, and manufacturing jobs that are now largely mechanized or have moved out of the country.  And while the job market has changed and become more service-oriented, the diet has not changed with it.  Health concerns generally follow education and income levels, so unless those things are given priority, health concerns will remain low. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removing the bit about hot climate. I've never heard that before and it sounds bogus. Plus, the source is 404. Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged disputed claim with dubious and 404 link with dead link. Viriditas (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as one that lives here, I can vouch for the climate issue.. most of our summer days are hot with 100% humidity so we tend to stay indoors.. a lot more than people in milder climates. As a result, couch potato syndrome is alive and well in the deep South. So yes, I'd agree it's a combination of the hot climate and poor nutrition. But since I am not a source and per WP:OR - and without a valid source, the section should be removed, as well as the dead source links. Cheers! - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Diet, lifestyle choices, and genetics are responsible for obesity. People may certainly be more sedentary in a hot environment, but there are active people living in hot climates around the world who do not have problems with obesity.  Sedentary lifestyles are increasing across the board in every climate for many reasons, mostly due to the ease of transportation, television (and internet) habits, and the urbanization of the landscape (easy access to fast food, disappearance of rural areas for recreational use, inaccessibility of bike lanes, safety of streets for leisurely strolling day or night, etc.)  For younger people, one solution is to start incorporating competitive Wii workouts in the schools with rewards for every milestone, and to get back to teaching nutrition and physiology as early as possible.  A focus on preventive medicine, rather than prescription quick-fixes that do not solve the problem needs to be encouraged at every level of health care.  Older generations are set in their ways and are unlikely to change their bad habits, and it is a waste of time to spend enormous amounts of money trying to get them to change.  The way forward is to start early with the youngest sector of the population and hope they can educate their parents.  This can actually work, and younger children with parents who smoke who are exposed to anti-smoking programs are often able to help their parents quit the habit.  The same might be true for diet.  The current model is backwards and needs to change.  Addressing obesity starts from the bottom, not the top.  I should point out that this approach is radical, as the traditional model assumes that parents are the role models and children take their cue directly from their parents.  While this is certainly true, in situations where parents are poor role models in terms of poor diet and little or no exercise, the impetus for change has to come from the children themselves.  Anyone who has kids or remembers their childhood, knows that children can alter their parents behavior if that change is beneficial for both parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Estelle Watts, a consultant with the State Department of Education’s Office of Coordinated School Health, highlighted the need for adults to demonstrate good health choices for young people.“We need to be role models for (children) and help them understand why those choices we make are so important.”
 * Sigh. It won't work.  As can be expected, they are going about it the wrong way.  Children will not listen to overweight people preaching about diet.  Kids aren't stupid.  Their growing brains are literally learning machines, and they learn best when given problems to solve.  For example, "Are your parents overweight?  Why?  What can you do about it?"  Change comes from the bottom.  Parents are not going to change their kids bad habits, especially when those bad habits were learned from them in the first place.  Does Mississippi understand the problem or are they out to lunch? Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have little doubt that climate and nutrition are contributing factors but we should put those words into someone's mouth. Google Scholar may help find sources. I'll have a quick look and add some if they pop up. -- Banj e b oi   04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are none. Correlation does not imply causation.  Sedentary lifestyles combined with poor diets are to blame, and the rise of sedentary lifestyles is independent of climate. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources. If we have some that state that the climate - which is a bit vague, btw - or nutritional issues are contributing factors then they certainly could be included in a NPOV way. In even a short view into this it would seem poverty and racism also play a significant roles into health issues in the state. -- Banj e b oi   05:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have neglected to read WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found and added a source that covered climate concern. It may be too new, but there is some statewide health initiatives that may be helpful to add. We've stated a pronounced issue and now it would be good to cover any official reaction or lack thereof to the issue(s). I didn't feel the need to add the racism bit as of yet but ping my talkpage if you want help finding something appropriate.  -- Banj e b oi   05:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that. Since this discussion is ongoing, and this is a collaborative endeavor, I'm removing it until this is resolved on the talk page.  Please do not edit unilaterally and work towards an agreement here on the talk page.  You and I have only had positive interaction in the past, so let's continue that trend.  I'm starting a new subsection below to address this source directly. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it helps, here's a site talking about how warm climates can lead to weight gain: http://www.dietbites.com/Diet-Articles-8/diet-hot-climate.html --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC News

 * 1) Disputed statement: The climate in Mississippi doesn't help according to the locals: hot, humid conditions for most of the year can make outdoor exercise unpleasant. I visited there in December when the weather was mild, but that still wasn't enough to attract joggers onto the streets.
 * 2) Source doesn't meet WP:MEDRS.
 * 3) Author is Fergus Walsh, medical correspondent for BBC News. Walsh is a graduate of University College Falmouth, an art school.  Wash obtained a graduate degree in Broadcast Journalism.
 * 4) Statement in question represents the opinion of the author and is not based on any medical or scientific study.
 * 5) Author attributes opinion about climate to random strangers he met.
 * 6) Author positions opinion about climate between discussion of two surveys, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Trust for America's Health Survey, making it look like the statement has merit, as if it is based on one of these two surveys.
 * 7) Disputed statement is being used to support the opinion of two editors that obesity in Mississippi is due to the climate.
 * 8) Primary studies needed to verify relationship of climate to obesity. Secondary sources like the BBC News article should be supported by primary research.
 * 9) Question: Looking at obesity rates throughout the world, do we find a higher incidence in warmer climates?
 * 10) Answer: OECD Health Data: Incomplete. Measures obesity in less than 30 countries (out of 241?); data collection differs based on different levels of risk for certain ethnic groups, changing survey definitions by nation, and different results based on measured or self-reported data.
 * 11) Question: What is the effect of cold climate on the human body?
 * 12) Answer: In some people, obesity. "FABP2 A54T was a gene that was more prevalent in populations with lower temperatures actually increases BMA, promotes storage of fat in the body and increases levels of cholesterol. While this protects the body against the cold, it increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes, and thus metabolic syndrome."


 * We really should provide accurate information on health problems like obesity. There are many myths surrounding the topic and wikipedia should not propagate myth.  See the obesity page it is well written.  There is no good evidence that the weather affects obesity.  One site quoted above says hot weather causes weight lose thru dehydration.  Obesity depends on ones amount of fat not on fluid balance.  Good sources are found at site like pubmed.com  Cheers--Doc James (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, you have, IMHO, accused me of edit warring - by encouraging me repeatedly not to, when I wasn't - and have persisted in rather, again IMHO, edit-war-like behavior under the banner of BRD. Yet when I add sourced content its edit-warring. Whatever. You have strong ideas about what is scientifically true while I think the research is still rather inconclusive. I've done nothing but try to improve the article including adding sourced content. Delete what you will - good luck. -- Banj e b oi  22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Hopefully we can get past the accusations and work together on the health section.  You say, "I think the research is still rather inconclusive", but as I have pointed out above, there is no research in this particular area.  And if you can provide more sources supporting the relationship between climate, exercise, and obsesity in Mississippi, I would be more than happy to take a look.  The way the original content was worded and then replaced, made it seem like there was a relationship between obesity and climate.  To the best of my knowledge, there is none, but I am willing to keep an open mind.  We have to be very careful with using health and medical observations written by someone who graduated from art school. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For future editors in this area the, apparently controversial, text removed was that locals told the BBC health reporter that near year-round humid climate made exercising unpleasant outdoors. No one was suggesting that humidity causes obesity. -- Banj e b oi  21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is nothing controversial here, just a desire to see good sources used in the appropriate context, and without misleading readers. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some locals told something a BBC reporter. How incredibly relevant for an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.65.48 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC) — 91.0.65.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Viriditas, I have again moved your comments out of the middle of mine and it should be quite clear that I don't appreciate you inserting your rebuttals between my responses as if a conversation had occurred which didn't; as if you commented then I completely ignored what you stated. These actions, IMHO, seem like the edit-warring behaviours you accuse me of doing so I want to state clearly I don't appreciate it, I find it uncivil and unhelpful. Wikipedia isn't a battleground and discussions aren't won or lost. I disagree with your stance but am unwilling to mount a defense for what I see as a rather silly argument. A BBC health reporter noted the state is humid most the year round and the residents find outdoor exercise uncomfortable, in part due to that climate condition. I'm sure some scientist can be found who can verify these rather obvious facts but no bother. I'm sure the needed content will eventually be worked out. -- Banj e b oi   02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Previously, on your talk page, I asked you not to move my comments and requested that you explain your actions. Your reply makes it clear why you are engaging in this disruptive behavior.  As a result of your continued movement of my comments, which were made in accordance with talk page policies and guidelines, you are attempting to accuse me of edit warring in retaliation for what you feel is an unjust accusation made by me against you.  This is immature, childish, and frankly, dishonest behavior.  Since you have shown absolutely no respect for discussion conventions, my position on this matter, or repeated requests on your talk page, I'm afraid that I'm putting you on permanent ignore as you are acting like nothing more than a troll.  Goodbye and good luck.  Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit harsh. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Untrue assertion re gambling

 * Before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Mississippi was the second largest gambling state in the Union, after Nevada and ahead of New Jersey.

Actually this article says otherwise, so I removed the claim. Ufwuct (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Article girth
The article is huge. I've made an attempt at cutting it down some (such as getting rid of the redundant full list of every college in the state since we already have List of colleges and universities in Mississippi).

The History section and the Economy section need to undergo a re-write for reduction.

Since we already have History of Mississippi, there's no sense in duplicating that much content here.

I'd suggest also killing the redirect at Economy of Mississippi, trimming the related content here and moving it to the aforementioned article.

Any of you regulars want to tackle this or have a thought on the matter? - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

this is incomplete!
there is no info about the senators! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irock67 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It tells you under the Law and government section to see the main article Law and government of Mississippi. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay Mississippi
The gay and lesbian section of the mississippi article should be removed. It is not relevant to the article. I have not come across any other state article on wikipedia with an entire gay and lesbian section. Demographics of states should be left to race and ethnicity only. Also the info even though sourced is misleading and one qoute is flat out wrong. I double checked the sources they have listed and Jackson, Ms is not number ten in African American homosexuals. Furthermore it is naturally obvious to assume that Mississippi would have the highest percentage of Black gays of any state, Mississippi has the largest overall Black percentage of any state. From the soures listed on the article New mexico and Texas have the largest Latino gay percentages. Latino homosexuals though are not included in the demographics sections of the Texas or New Mexico articles. So why should Black gays be covered in the Mississippi article. I would enjoy dialogue on this matter. If it were San Francisco, West Hollywood, or Boca Raton or something i could see how this would be apporiate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christchild777 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that the older sub-section of Demographics did strike me as a bit too much information on the topic. However, it had references on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that the politics section on the same topic didn't, so I've gone ahead and added those back for now.  Alexius  Horatius 04:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the section in its entirety. Gay and lesbian Mississippians are a demographic. The sources are valid and sourced. Apparently CHRISTchild didn't read the study done thoroughly but I have. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 07:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the LGBT community isn't a demographic group, nor am I saying that it doesn't exist in the state of Mississippi. The problem is that there are dozens, if not hundreds of demographic groups in the state, such as Hispanics, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and women between the ages of 18 and 65, but we can't have paragraphs and illustrations on all of these for obvious reasons relating to the article's size. I'll also note that the articles on San Francisco, New York City, and Minneapolis, all featured articles and all places, I think it's safe to say, that have a much more prominent LGBT presence than Mississippi does, have a great deal less material in their demographics sections on the group than this article currently does. SF has two sentences, MPLS has one sentence, and there is no mention of it at all in NYC. Alexius  Horatius 09:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sections on various demographic groups and statistical breakdowns are appropriate for countries, states, geopolitical regions, and governmental subdivisions such as counties, cities, townships, and villages, assuming they are reliably sourced. That includes gender, marital status, age band, language spoken, religion, orientation, political affiliation, and other typical demographic statistics. That other articles don't have orientation, or other demographics, means that it's missing from those articles, maybe because editors didn't get around to entering them, not because they shouldn't be in those articles. Articles about states and subdivisions isn't just about size, location, climate, and geological information, but about who lives there. Ultimately, these geographical and political entities are about people and their history and what makes them the same and different, otherwise it's just about the land, water, flora and fauna and their variations on a continent. If the demographic sections get overly large, then the procedure is to fork them out to a separate article with a short summary section. As examples, there is an article on Demographics of Mississippi which is currently a REDIRECT to this article's demographics section. Demographics of New York is, however, a separate article. — Becksguy (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is already hovering around 83 kilobytes, so one could argue for a split and summary style in its place. But I don't think that would change anything, as the most important points in the article would remain. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (reply to Becksguy) The reason those articles I mentioned don't have more information is because of WP:Summary style, not because someone hasn't got around to adding more to it (again, they're featured articles, so I doubt that they would have any major gaps in them given the amount of review they had to go through to get to that stage). I'm not saying don't mention it in the article at all, I'm just saying that three paragraphs and an illustration about a single and, at least in Mississippi's case, a somewhat limited group is a bit much. If there were a Demographics of Mississippi article, I wouldn't be opposed to having a section like the one that is here in an article like that, and I'm not opposed to having a shorter mention of the topic here. That said, I guess I'm OK with having it here for now, as, like you said, there currently isn't a Demographics of Mississippi article, and we should strive not to lose information without good reason. In the future, though, as the article grows and becomes more developed, I think we may need a more limited criteria for the inclusion of a three-paragraph subsection than 'it exists, it has sources, therefore keep it in the article'. Alexius  Horatius 12:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've pretty much answered your own questions. It's here because it's unique to a place that is known for it's hate. That alone is reason enough to warrant 3 paragraphs. I wish it were more. '''-

''' ✰ <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R ✰ echo 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi is no longer known for its hate. I am from Mississippi and i find that offensive. Second i have Bachelors degree from Cal-State Long Beach in History and now i am working on my Master's degree at the University of Southern Mississippi. The fact that this gay section is included in the demographics along with other things i've seen on wikipedia is why no one in the academic world uses wikipedia. It is not a real encyclopedia. Including a gay section is not justified because All-Star echo feels Mississippi used to be a hateful state. That seems like a personal reason not an ACADEMIC reason. The part about the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if staying on this article belongs in the political section. So does the part about the gay and lesbian equality group. Although i do not believe it warrants being on here at all. That is like talking about MALDEF or the NAACP is the race section. It is not necessary. I will keep deleting the section because when i find un-academic articles on wikipedia that is what i do or edit them. I teach high school in Mississippi and i am tired of my students thinking they can use wikipedia as a source and then they qoute ridicolous stuff like this that is not pertinent to Mississippi. Lastly if you just want something that is important to you on the web use myspace do not use what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.


 * No reasons groundedin Wikipedia policy were given why this section should stay. Given the small numbers cited in the section notability of LGBT communities has not been established. And Allstarecho, please refrain from attacking other editors, as you did here repeatedly. Do something constructive and propose a section that is relevant for the article and does not go into excessive details that are irrelevant for the article. Just mentioning the population share of LGBT people is more than enough, do not forget that this article is an overview article about Mississippi. 91.0.85.54 (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I just see which other tactics Allstarecho employs here to push his POV. Dare to remove this section, and it is called [censhorship]. Wow, that makes it clear that a discussion with this editor is quite useless. 91.0.85.54 (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And inappropriate canvassing is going on, see []. 91.0.85.54 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, it is clear that Allstarecho does not want to discuss anything. I removed the section in question, and he simply reverted it, claiming that I am vandalizing, probably to scare me from editing here. 91.0.62.38 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you just keep removing this section because you don't like it. In your edit summary you said there was a consesnsus, no such thing. Time for my 2 cents. As a resident of Mississippi myself, i don't mind gay and lesbians. Plus wikipedia is not censored (CENSOR). Elbutler (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what I said. I do not mind a section on LGBT people, but they should be relevant to the article and in proportion to the importance. And I have nothing against LGBT people, so i would welcome if you would not just assume that I have someting against them. But what I am saying, you do not even try to understand the arguments mentioned above. 91.0.111.35 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still no arguments forthcoming why this section should be included. If we need to mention LGBT people one or two summarizing sentences in the demography section are more than enough, and maybe mentioning the referendum in the politics section. But as (featured) articles on New York City or San Francisco, including three paragraphs on LGBT people violates WP:NPOV, in particular WP:UNDUE. It is a small group, and Mississippi is not especially notable for its LGBT culture. As seen above no arguments based on Wikipedia policies are forthcoming, as the points I am simply repeating here have not been answered by the one editor who seems it fit to canvass inappropriately and use strong-arm tactics to supress opinions he/she does not like. 91.0.65.48 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument has already been presented and consensus was made over a year ago that the section stays in the article. Just because you do not believe gay and lesbian people are not "demographics", surely doesn't make it right or justify removal of sourced, valid content. Additionally, you should read WP:SOCK. - ✰ <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R ✰ echo 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is not an answer. Maybe you forgot how the discussion one year ago looked like, but if you read the archive Talk:Mississippi/archive_1 you will see that there was no consensus building. And even if there was a consensus, consensus can change, and the arguments presented above are entirely new and have not been discussed in the past. So please answer them instead of avoiding any discussion here. Furthermore, I did not say that I do not believe that gay or lesibian are not demographics. I mereley said that this section violates WP:UNDUE. Please read what I and other said. 91.0.67.181 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All star echo has said he will flag me for vandalism if edit this section again. Well since i have come to the full conclusion that wikipedia isn't for scholarly minded people i will gladly be marked for Vandalism. Since vandalism derives from the vandals and i feel like wikipedia is an empire of ignorance, i will sack the Rome of stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christchild777 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, of course this is one of the scare tactics Allstarecho employs to push his POV. As everyone can see above he did not adress your valid points, and just slamming a vandalism warning on your talk page and accussing you of socking is a favorite tactic to scare away newbies and avoid any discussion. 91.0.81.1 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely following the argument for removal. Can someone encapsulate it for me in a small paragraph? Why is it repeatedly being removed? Hopefully I can help mediate here. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because this section is overly long in comparison to the importance of LGBT communities. WP:NPOV requires that articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Arguably LGBT communities are not prominent in Mississippi, much less so than in say New York City or San Francisco, and even in these articles (with NYC being featured, thus being a good benchmark), gay communities are only mentioned in passing. As I proposed above, one or sentences in the demography section and mentioning the referendum in the politics section is more than enough for a summary article on a state.91.0.67.181 (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and that's what we have now. Have you thought about trying to expand the demographics section so that it contains more information in general?  Part of the problem might be that it seems excessive because so much is missing about other demographics, so keep in mind that there might be an alternate way of looking at it.  Contact me if you need any help. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, but WP:NPOV states that should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Now, 4,774 same-sex couple are not exactly very significant in a state with almost 3 million people, and Mississippi is not known for its LGBT culture, as say San Francisco or New York City or California in general. Following your logic we would have to add all other demographic groups, in even more detail as they are arguably more significant. But then, this article would be extremely long, if we spend already two paragraphs on such a small demographic group. Again, I have nothing against LGBT people, but this encyclopaedia and we should mention only what is significant and prominent. Featured articles on other states and geographic places clearly establish a benchmark, and this benchmark speaks against such an ecessively detail discussion of LGBT communities. As I said above, I have nothing against mentioning LGBT communities in passing in one or two sentences in the demography section, correspoding to their significance, plus the referendum in the politics section. But the section as it stands is excessive and goes into details that are largely irrelevant for a summary article on a state. 91.0.104.195 (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing an insignificant viewpoint with a minority demographic. It's not the same.  Clearly, this demographic is significant for the reasons described.  Let me put this another way: if Mississippi had not passed Mississippi Amendment 1 (2004), this would not be a unique case of treating a specific demographic differently than others.  Can you point to any other minority demographic group who is singled out in this way?  I can go on with other examples, if you like.  And, if it makes any difference to you, I'm a heterosexual male who supports same-sex marriage. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I am not opposed to not including LGBT communities at all, just not in excessive detail. Really, do you think that a summary article about Mississippi needs to mention Equality Mississippi? Does a summary article needs to mention that Jackson ranks tenth, fifth, and ninth in some not very significant categories? Look at featured articles, and who they discuss LGBT people, that is, not at all, or only in passing, even in states such as California or Minnesota. The referendum is a bad indicator of significane as similar referenda have been held in almost every state of the US, thus making it rather doubtful that there is something special about Mississippi that warrants an overly detailed discussion of LGBT communities. Obviously I am repeating myself, in fact I am just reapeating what AlexiusHoratius and Christchild said above. 91.0.112.80 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, people often get the impression that they are repeating themselves when they refuse to listen and engage the other side of the discussion. I've engaged you, and I'm listening to what you are saying.  Are you listening to me?  Let's assume, for the moment, that we are both paying attention.  Your argument fails to convince on many levels, mostly because you neglect to address this article, rather than WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let's start there.  Convince me on the merits of this article.  I've already stated that the impression the LGBT section is unbalanced is due to a lack of information about other groups.  And what is your response?  Remember, respond only in terms of this article.  Don't raise other issues about other articles.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, lets assume that we both pay attention. Your response above makes it hard, but lets assume that. I was specifically pointing to featured articles, because they represent the best we have here on Wikipedia and are thus a natural benchmark for what to include and what not to include in articles. I was not pointing to some random crap articles, but featured articles.
 * Apparently some people here seem to think that if we can cite something, we should include it. But we should include something only if is notable. But the section does not give a hint why LGBT communities are notable. 4774 households in a state with almost 3 m people? Hardly notable. Ranking third, ninth, fifht in some comparison statistics is also not exaclty an assertion of notability. Is Equality Mississippi a notable organization? Nothing in the Mississippi or Equality Mississippi article suggests that this group is a significant factor in state politics. Referendum, well I explained above that this could have its place in the politics section. 91.0.117.133 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "let's point to FA" argument is fine in some instances, such as discussing non-controversial, undisputed topics having to do with basic structure or style. However, in a dispute like this, it doesn't help, and acts as a replacement for an argument from authority.  I see no reason why the LGBT demographic shouldn't be discussed in articles about all 50 states.  Usually, when a section like this grows too large, it is split out into something like Demographics of Mississippi.  Until then, it works fine.  Wikipedia isn't paper.  If you want to start a new demographics article and significantly expand it, you would find support for the summary style you are proposing.  Yes, it's going to take a bit of work on your part, but after all, you are here to improve this article, not to argue about your pet peeves, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no answer is also an answer. Apparently all these random facts are not notable then. And there is no reason to make any assumptions about my pet peeves. But I understand from this "discussion" that anyone opposing the inclusion must be have something against gays, want to censor etc. Yeah sure. Guess, I would be willing to improve the article but after seeing the ownership exerted here by Allstarecho and the lack of admin response to the tactics employed by this particular editor I will definitely not do that. 91.0.107.75 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent general comment for IP) 91, this is the way I'm thinking about this, maybe it will help - If this article had size issues (like North Carolina or New Jersey) or if the size of that sub-section was for some reason delaying promotion of the article to GA or FA status, I may be more opposed to it. However, this article has a number of problems, and having one sub-section which may or may not be a bit too long isn't really one of the more pressing ones. If you want to improve the article, there are plenty of ways to do it, but all this fighting over whether one sub-section should be trimmed or not isn't helping the article very much. Also, as others have been saying, there currently is no daughter article to which we could move the information, and that means we would simply have to delete the material, which isn't really a very good option. Alexius Horatius 14:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is of a low quality, but that is no reason to make it even worse. 91.0.117.133 (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My major concern is that the content not be deleted. It's true that articles should not have sections that violate WP:UNDUE. If LGBT was just a minority demographic with nothing much to point to, then a sentence or two would be sufficient, in proportion to it's importance. However, the overwhelming and highest support of any state for the anti LGBT constitutional amendment makes this subsection notable and relevant. As well as the statistics related to LGBT households, adopted children, and African-Americans. LGBT issues should be a bigger deal for the NYC article, since Stonewall was a defining point in the modern gay rights movement and parts of NYC have large and very visible gay populations. And that is something that needs fixing. If large amounts of sufficiently notable and reliably sourced gay rights content for Mississippi is found, then maybe another appropriate new forked article would be LGBT rights in Mississippi, just as there is an article LGBT rights in New Hampshire. To place this discussion in context, one sentence on Religion is a joke. Develop that, and the whole article, to it's full potential, rather than try to delete this subsection. I support the subsection as it is now with two paragraphs. — Becksguy (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the general consensus is to keep this section. I agree with some of the reasoning above: 1) The information contains reliable sources. 2) Since MS is the most anti-LGBT state, the information is notable and therefore deserves to be in the article. 3) The only reason the LGBT section looks disproportionate is because the rest of the section is underdeveloped. 4) In regard to #3, I find it quite funny that this is MS, and there are 2 paragraphs about LGBT and only 1 sentence about religion.
 * Yes, this disproportionality probably does show some POV from the editor (probably AllStarEcho), but that's because he's one of the few editors working on this article and he is interested in LGBT issues. If someone with interest in religion would expand that section (and the entire demographics section as a whole), the content would look much less prominent. Just because some editors have found more sourced material on LGBT issues than their "importance proportion" and other editors haven't found other topics' shares of sourced material doesn't demote the merit of this section. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) We do not have a source for that MS is the most anti-LGBT state. It is Allstarechos interpretation. If it would be true, we should cover the hate, and not those that are hated (which are a small minority according to the census numbers and relative to other states) 3) It would look disproportionate even if other section would be more developed. Two paragraphys on 4700 household. How many paragraphs than on African-Americans? And Christians? And so on.
 * You are right that this section reflects Allstarechos POV - that is also why this section boasts about Jackson being number five, nine and so on, but does not mention at all that LGBT people are a very small minority, relative to other states, and in absolute numbers. Oh wait, I shouldnt state the facts, because then I must be a gay hater (reality check: I am from Germany, and I am glad that I live in a country that is more advanced than the Us when it comes to LGBT rights). 91.0.107.75 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You just bought a one-way street to blockville! And i'll make your sock-puppets are all blocked and this talk page is protected. Elbutler (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. Yeah, please block me. Good luck. What insult, btw? 91.0.78.37 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Elbutler is not an administrator and has been cautioned about acting as one. I placed the strike through his/her comment. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind explaining/pointing out exactly what in those 2 paragraphs is POV? I see nothing but FACTS, backed up by SOURCES. There's no personal opinion ANYWHERE in those 2 paragraphs. And for the IP, you may think the study done is meaningless but every single national gay rights organization in the United States uses the same study. And yes, Equality Mississippi is a notable organization. It wouldn't have an article if it wasn't. It was put up for deletion when created and the fact that it's still here should tell you something - since you seem so well versed in WikiPolicy. I know what the real issue is here but I'll bite my tongue. But I will fight tooth and nail before I let anyone relegate Mississippi's gay and lesbian community to a non-existant status as long as there are other demographics within this article. - ✰ <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R ✰ echo 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me guess, the real issue here is the way you push your POV. Right, that is the real issue. Btw, if this organization is soo notable, shouldnt we mention it in the article on the USA article, too? 91.0.78.37 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the organization were a national organization, it would be on the USA article. I'm guessing since you are in Germany, you don't comprehend how the levels of organizations work in the United States. Most states have their own statewide organization. See Category:LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States, for a list of many of them. As to the POV issue, again, point out exactly what is POV because you've yet to do that. Also again, there is nothing but fact supported by sources in the section. There's no personal opinion in the 2 paragraphs at all. It doesn't say anything about "Jackson ranks 1st but I believe this is why". THAT would be opinion or personal point of view or non-neutral point of view. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The POV is that you think it is appropriate to include a two paragraph section on a marginal demographic group in a summary article on a state. And that you imply that anyone not agreeing with this assessment must be a gay hater. And btw, the facts stated in this section are not even supported by the source, as has been pointed out above at the beginning of the section. The link provided does not even mention Mississippi or Jackson. But sure, "The sources are valid and sourced. Apparently CHRISTchild didn't read the study done thoroughly but I have." Yeah, sure, certainly not on the page where the citations links to. But why listen to other people, we will just accuse them of vandalism, threaten them with blocking and just claim that we have read the source, although this is a blatant lie. 91.0.108.126 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'll do a little research, there's a link on the source web page for the full study in PDF format. But since it seems you and Christchild777 are too lazy to research, here's the link directly to the PDF file: here As you'll see, it does mention Mississippi and Jackson. But alas, can't get through your smokescreen of arguing to do some actual research... I am done arguing with you over this issue because it's like arguing with a dead tree. Any more responses by you will be ignored by me. The facts are there, they are sourced, the study is a valid study. Good day. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 23:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this but no one has any objections to this section but you, and you used about 5 sock-puppets to try the remove a section. Then you lied saying that there was a consensus when there wasn't. Then you made some crack about the United States. Considering that the only one with an objection is a sock-puppet, you shouldn't try to point out the wikipedia rules since you've broken almost every one of them. This arguement has been going on for 4 days, and it seems it's only a war of personal attacks and vandalism. We'll all people here, it doesn't matter what sex we're attracted to, or what country we live in, if the United States and England could compromise, people arguing over an encyclopedia can too. Don't you see what you're doing? This was suppose to be about the knowledge, but instead you're creating a revert war over wether or not we should include a gay section. You've both broken the 3-revert rule, even though AllStar is an admin, and the IP is obssessed with the rules. It's time to end this already, and if you're not going to end this madness and come to some compromise then i'll find someone who will. Elbutler (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Elbutler: I'm assuming that this comment is primarily directed at the anon editor 91 based on content. Also, Allstar is not an admin. The excessive reverting may result in protecting the article and/or blocking of editors if the edit war continues. We do not use articles as battlegrounds. Rather civil and consensus building discussions about article improvement belong on talk pages. — Becksguy (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Becks for clearing that up as far as me being an admin. Incidentally, reverting removal of sourced content within policy and content in which there is no consensus to remove is exempt from 3RR as it's been explained to me numerous times before. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 01:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you're wondering, Allstarecho, I wasn't saying that the paragraphs themselves contain POV material. The paragraphs are well written and contain factual, sourced material. The only POV I was suggesting is that since you have contributed a lot to this article, stuff that interests you would more likely be in the article. I'm not saying your personal opinions are in the article, but LGBT issues interest you, so it's natural that you were willing to do the research and add the material. If you had been interested in religion in MS, I'm sure you would have added a lot more to the religion section. I'm not saying that adding factual, sourced material is a bad thing (I'm actually saying the opposite); I'm simply saying that your "point of view" manifests itself with the amount of material in each section. If someone with a different point of view came along and expanded other sections that interested them in the same way that you've expanded the LGBT section, that would be a good thing. I'm not attacking you or criticizing your work - I actually commend you.. I'm just saying other people need to do some research about other demographics in the state in the same way that you've done with LGBT. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I kind of got the idea of what you were saying and do appreciate you clearing it up. :] - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 06:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone hasn't already checked Google books, there's a lot of information on this topic, enough to even create a new article devoted to it. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth in what you say, Dudemanfellabra. The good news about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit what interests them. The bad news is that anyone can edit what interests them. We agree that parts of the article needs development, some extensively, which in addition to the betterment of the article over all, will reduce the perceived relative prominence of this subsection. Viriditas has reported that there is enough information to develop this, so hopefully someone familiar with MS will. — Becksguy (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats the point - I raised several points, the have been ignored, instead I am accussed of having some hidden agenda or being a sockpuppet, but I guess that is how Wikipedia works, try to couh an article that is owned by an established editor and all the wrath is upon you. I conclude that several of the points I raised have not been answered. And you Americans are wondering why no one likes you? Well, here is the answer, once again. 91.0.58.213 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's wondering why no one likes America? Personally, I don't give 2 shits whether or not you or anyone else likes America. ;] - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much discussion over irrelevant materials. While this material may find a home on a LGBT page, it has no place on a state overview page. Revmqo (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is LGBT communities section relevant
Is the content in the "LGBT communities" section relevant to the article? 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't ;-) is no argument. I find the section informative, and I fail to see any POV problem. I would take out the sentence on Equality Mississippi, though, as that seems to be undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As Stephan says, comparison to other state articles is irrelevant. Given Mississippi's unique history in civil rights, this demographic is relevant to the Demographics section of this state article. Agree with Stephan also that the Equality Mississippi content could be done without, although I don't see it as undue weight. It speaks to a historic organization representing the demographic which is being discussed. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Equality Mississippi should be linked to in the section since apparently it's the main/largest pro-gay organization in the state... but maybe it could be re-added in a better way - possibly after the mention of the constitutional amendment.. like "In response to the amendment, gay rights activists formed the Mississippi Gay Lobby in 2000, which later changed its name to Equality Mississippi in 2001." or something like that. Then a short bit about some notable stuff they did from the article itself can be included. I do think, however, that the image is a bit undue; there just isn't enough information in the section to warrant an image in my opinion.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the content relevant? The *title* was not even relevant! The US census data does not reference this self designated acronym, "LGBT." I retitled it to reflect the referenced material. In general, this whole article needs a re-write. You'd think from this article that only the Mississippi Delta has a history. Now where is my #2 pencil ........ --Q2fred (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it funny the apparent need to move it below the Religion subsection of the Demographics section. Heaven forbid and God smite thee if the homosexuals are read about before the religion, YEEHAW! I mean, seriously? What people should be questioning here is why the Religion subsection is even in the Demographics section. Religion isn't a demographic.. at least not how it's being presented in this article. It's being presented as a "history of", not as a class of people broken down my some interesting numbers. But alas, agendas abound, even on Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * REPLY to Allstarecho:  After reading historical comments about your attitude and approach to editing, I wanted to see for myself how true these comments really were. And guess what... my simple formatting change elicited the very behavior that so many others have referred to in their comments. In all sincerity, I ask that you adopt a civil tone and address those of us who reflect on the content of this (and other pages) with a modicum of respect. Even if you don't like us or our work, you don't have any reason to be rude. Revmqo (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Examples of inappropriate behavior:
 * Who's wondering why no one likes America? Personally, I don't give 2 shits whether or not you or anyone else likes America. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid and God smite thee if the homosexuals are read about before the religion, YEEHAW! I mean, seriously? What people should be questioning here is why the Religion subsection is even in the Demographics section. Religion isn't a demographic.. at least not how it's being presented in this article. It's being presented as a "history of", not as a class of people broken down my some interesting numbers. But alas, agendas abound, even on Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your personal agenda is no reason to muck up an article either, but I digress. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy
The line in the economy section about taxes is un-cited. More importantly, it is wrong. There are no local sales taxes in Mississippi. Agree it is technically wrong... The correct source for Mississippi sales taxes is here: http://www.mstc.state.ms.us/taxareas/sales/rates.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by DohertyDavid (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay section
California recently voted on prop 8 and affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman and they make no mention on the California page concerning Gay demographics in that state or discussion of the recent vote. California has arguably the largest gay population in the United States. Mississippi has so few gays living in the state that it is hardly < > per << Wikipedia >> notability standards. Also, the page depicts a negative slanted view of Mississippi in general. It is obvious, whoever maintains control of the Mississippi page has an axe to grind and that is just sad. Gay Marriage is a "National issue" and to discuss it on a page with the title Mississippi is inappropriate. DohertyDavid (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia notability is not based on the number of people involved. William Shakespeare is notable, although there is only one of him: people 5 foot 11 inches tall are not, although there are millions of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

JamesBWatson I can certainly agree that William Shakespeare is notable but he is not notable on a page dedicated to the state of Iowa for example. Gay Marriage is notable in the proper context. It certainly deserves its own wiki page dedicated to the topic but it is not notable in the sense that it belongs as a Headline topic on a page about Mississippi. I could understand a section like this for a state like California because it is notable in that sate due to recent events and the strong Gay community and historical figures such as Harvey Milk and others. I still contend that whoever holds control of this page is someone with an agenda against Mississippi and it only serves to hurt the reputation of Wikipedia. I studied Mississippi History at the University of Southern Miss and I can tell you there are many more issues that would be notable you could have included on the page besides a topic that has little relevance to anyone living in Mississippi. For Example, recently the largest raid on a company hiring illegal aliens is in Laurel Mississippi. discussing the rise of illegal aliens in Mississippi since Hurricane Katrina might be a notable topic. But talking about the plight of the polar bear might be good for Alaska but Mississippi has no polar bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DohertyDavid (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this on Requests for Third Opinion. I would say keep the information in the article - note that as per WP:NNC, WP:NOTABILITY determines if a subject should have its own article, but not does not limit article content. If there were an article such as "Same-sex marriage in Mississippi" (as there is with many other states - but it's apparently not notable enough), then the info should be included there and linked from this article, so the Mississippi article looks like it's the correct place for this information in absence of anywhere else. Also, I don't see how the information in question is non-neutral - raw facts are not non-neutral (except in cases of WP:UNDUE, which this clearly is not). MildlyMadContribs 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So then, by your argument it would be acceptable for me to quote the population of polar bears in the state of Mississippi because polar bears are notable as an endangered species. Since, polar bears are not notable enough in Mississippi to have their own page, "Polar Bears in Mississippi" then it is fine to add that information to the main page about Mississippi as there is no other place for the raw data to go. I fail to see the logic in your reply. Further, the same sex marriage page here on Wikipedia makes no mention of same sex marriage or same sex couples in the state of Mississippi. Therefore, If Mississippi is not NOTABLE enough to appear on the, "Same Sex Marriage" page then the same would apply vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DohertyDavid (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that section is too long and therefore WP:UNDUE for quantity of total membership. Article is not about gays per se, but about all of Mississippi, most of whom do not belong to this group. Wikipedia is neither politically correct nor politically incorrect, but a balance needs to be attained here IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion
There is a huge section on religion which probably belongs in the forked History of Mississippi at best. The subsection was under Demographics as I recall. This goes well beyond demographics.

I didn't think the subsection was quite right, nor does it express what the reference says. Catholics were clustered, as it says.

Pioneers, typically, would have cared less about religion but had Protestant roots from their ancestors to the east (Alabama, Georgia, etc.). These were amenable to the Great Awakening (should read Second Great Awakening, right?), a Protestant movement. Catholics already opposed slavery. The article does not seem to make clear if the majority of the people were opposed to slavery, why they voted to secede. The article seems to deny history, that the people from this state was as enthusiastic as any other Southern state, evangelical or otherwise.

There was no "questioning" of faith by "Catholic reformists" IMO, but non-practicing Protestants reattaching themselves to their traditional roots. Catholics largely remained Catholics, but were not pioneering. (About the only pioneers that brought their ministers with them were the Puritans).

Even the Wikipedia article on the Great Awakening chronicles biracial churches but this leaves a lot to the imagination with most black adherents slaves and without money. They might have accompanied their owners to church, I suppose, but the statement needs a bit of expansion IMO.

A "Call for social equality" in the 1930s by blacks would have invited lynching. Where did this come from?

White Baptists became traditional segregationist in the 20th century whatever they were in the 19th.

The article seems to put everyone in a special group that thinks 21st century which would be pretty unusual for someone in the 19th century. Even Abraham Lincoln thought the blacks were genetically inferior and he was a "broadminded" 19th century "liberal!"

In the short run, the easiest thing to change is to rm the history of religion from demographics and put it somewhere else until we are finished discussing it. We should have counts of current day only under demographics-religion. Student7 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Student7, as I remarked on your talk page, all of these problems you have with the content of the section are your personal beliefs. Read the references before doubting the material. They have valid information written by historians that have a lot more knowledge about the topic than you do. Just because you don't think that there were no biracial churches or calls for social equality doesn't make it true. The references contain all the information necessary to draw the conclusions in this section. I would also suggest learning to type in complete sentences and make clear points when you're typing. You may have something valid to say, but unless you speak properly and in complete sentences, others can't understand you.


 * I agree that there is a lot of history in the section, and I could agree with moving most of it to a subsection of the "History" section. I don't, however, agree with the way you've split the section up. For one thing, the part you left in the religion section begins with an incomplete sentence, and it leaves out the figures from the 2000 census that were present before about other denominations, which in your HTML comment you state are missing. Maybe you should read the entire section and actually compare it to the sources before making edits based on your assumed infinite knowledge. I'm going to revert your edits, though I am open-minded to the idea of reshaping the history part of the section into a new subsection under History. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if we can't agree on the easy part, I'm not sure about the rest of the material. The easy part was moving the huge section on religious history out of demographics. Why don't you try to move it? Student7 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, frankly, I'm fine with it staying the way it is. Look at the other demographics sections; they all contain history. "Racial makeup and ancestry" goes into detail about the history of Choctaws, African-Americans, and even Chinese Mississippians. The "same-sex couples" section used to contain a brief history of gay rights in the state before several editors disagreed not with the content of the section, but the idea of having the section at all. They successfully stripped it of everything but raw information (which you've taken even more of by moving the ban on gay marriage to another section) and couldn't go any further because the information is well-sourced and notable.
 * Demographics doesn't have to contain just raw data. From WP:USCITY: "For some cities one demographic aspect, such as religion or ethnicities, can be important enough to dedicate an entire paragraph to explaining its meaning and implications for the city." If this is true for a city, why not a state? The information in this section, though you seem to disagree, sticks with the sources and explains the historical religious shift in the state, which is a major part of demographics and is thus notable. If you think the section is too long, why not expand the others? I'm sure that there are copious amounts of information about racial makeup, household size, etc. of the state. I was interested in the religion of the state, so I did the research (Isn't that what you're supposed to do on Wikipedia?) and added the information. Just because other people with interests in other areas haven't done the same doesn't mean my information is any less valid.
 * If anything, the section may be expanded more than it is now, perhaps even enough to warrant a Religion in Mississippi article (currently a redirect to this section) through WP:Summary Style. Until the section becomes that long, though, I don't think anything should change with it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "Religion in Mississippi." Student7 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition
There is a sentence on the repeal of prohibition that reads. "Prior to that, Mississippi had taxed the illegal alcohol brought in by bootleggers." This is true, but it seems to imply that there is something wrong with that; collusion with bootleggers maybe. As we know, this is standard procedure to catch smugglers. Tax what they smuggle then catch them for smuggling; alternately, IF you catch them for smuggling, they are indicted BOTH for smuggling and for avoiding taxes. A catch 22 that all governments, federal and state follow. The sentence should somehow be amended to show that reasoning. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Mississippi
I just found: And it includes a listing of Mississippi's largest employers (689, 31/62)
 * "Census Information." from the Mississippi Secretary of State

I think Economy of MS could be split into a new article. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall Mississippi Article Review:
In a research for finding updated information on the state of Mississippi, I was slightly unimpressed with the information available on this wiki site. The article does a sufficient job of hitting the key points of the history of the state and its status regarding demographics and economy; however, many of the polls and rankings have not been update since 2006, and the condition of the state has surely changed in the past five years.

In contrast, I was pleased to discover new knowledge on the state of Mississippi concerning the culture of music and the arts. Also, The history of Mississippi is unique and the article summarizes it in a precise and adequate manner.

I believe readers would also appreciate a new topic on this site concerning the Mississippi Gulf Coast and its impact on the state as a whole. Because of its beaches, casinos and tourism appeal, I think it would be interesting to learn about what this specific region does for the rest of Mississippi, regarding revenue, demographics and other state issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadam28 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry of Mississippi
What on earth is "American Ancestry" rated as 14% and the highest, followed by Irish, English, etc? The citation is to 2000 census (There's now 2010 census data available, but that's not the issue). According to 2010 census data (*" questions are asked and data collected for "Race and Hispanic Origin Data": nothing about "ancestry". Any data that does not show African ancestry and European ancestry or some such, is a relic of times we want to update. Get rid of the Eurocentric viewpoint, please.Terrydarc (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)TerryDarc

Education in Mississippi Summary
This Wikipedia article gives a quick history of education in Mississippi. The public education system was established during the Reconstruction period of the 1870s. Mississippi relies heavily on agricultural markets, and the rural lifestyle of the state has greatly inhibited public schools from retaining students. Mississippi residents are also heavy supporters of conservative tax laws that have also limited school spending.

The article contains a great amount of information on the history of black education in the state, but does little to satisfy an in-depth analysis of public education. In the later part of the 1980s, 954 public elementary and secondary schools had a total yearly enrollment of about 369,500 students (Wikipedia). The Wikipedia article also states that in 2007, Mississippi students ranked last in the National Assessments of Education Progress and also ranked last by the American Legislative Exchange Council's Report Card on Education.

Besides the explanation of the state's low test scores, the article also contains information concerning private education such as the Mississippi School for the Deaf and the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science. I did not see this information necessary to have a full paragraph in the education article, but it is important to include in another way. This sporadic article on education contains useful information but should be edited to better reflect the current standards of education in Mississippi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadam28 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Federal expenditure
The article provides an oft-cited statistic that, while factual, can mislead the reader into thinking that Mississippians are hypocritical in their fiscal conservatism, given the total government spending in the state. The statistic provided is not really useful as evidence for such a question, and I have attempted to provide a cautionary note to the reader. I hope I didn't sound argumentative (it's a bit late at night).

Note that there is a great deal I have not added which would illustrate how difficult a serious investigation of the matter would be. For example, fiscal conservatives in the United States generally favor increased spending on government defense; the view that if the government's going to spend the money anyway, they might as well get their share; etc. Simplex (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That One Bay Along the Mississippi-Alabama State Line: Name?
It isn't included on most maps (for whatever reason; perhaps because it runs north-south, along the Mississippi-Alabama state line, thus being essentially coterminous with the state line, and so wouldn't display well on political maps), but I have seen it on a large, 3D topographical map in Storm Hall, at San Diego State University. Highway 90 presumably crosses it (and no, I'm not talking about Mobile Bay, or St. Louis Bay, but rather a body of water that is significantly larger than St. Louis Bay, and which is located between them ie. west of Mobile Bay, and east of St. Louis Bay.

Surely, anyone who lives (or has lived) in southeast Mississippi, must know the name of this body of water...so, what is it? Thank you for your assistance. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Economy Section POV and encyclopedic style
Neither neutral POV nor stylistic consistency is practiced here. Why is there a recap of social history in the economy section? Look at the economy sections of other states and you'll see that they present a description of economic activity not an opinion piece on the nexus of economics and social injustice. I think this whole sections needs a re-write badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.94.84 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Teddy Bear explanation is complete and utter hogwash!
It makes me wonder how much other hogwash is on this page. Holt Collier, Roosevelt's bear hunting guide, had driven a bear past Roosevelt's stand, but Teddy had gone to eat lunch before the bear came by. Collier's dogs bayed the bear in a swamp and Collier had to get a rope on the bear to contain the situation. When Roosevelt arrived on the scene the other hunters urged him to shoot it but he refused because he felt it was unsportsmanlike to shoot a tethered bear. When I have time I'll dig up the book about Collier and set the record straight. The Wiki on Holt Collier has a more or less accurate account, but incomplete. For now I suggest that ridiculous paragraph be removed altogether...DrHenley (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Introductory sections way too short
The introductory section of this article is way too short. An ideal one should state important events in the topic's history, etc. Please make it longer if you can. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Mississippi
Section on racism in Mississippi should be added as its part of Mississippi's politics and socio-political life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.203.10 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should perhaps be added into the intro, like TN's. It's seriously devoid of much of anything; it's barely only a few sentences. Most state articles have a few paragraphs for the intro. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

HIV/Aids cure
According to the Mississippi article a doctor "discovered a functional cure for AIDS" at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. However more recent research shows that the child who the doctors thought had been cured still has HIV. So, I think we should either remove that statement or put more explanation. TimMagee (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

History section biased
Were there any whites in Mississippi during any part of its history? The section is all about what was happening to African-Americans. While they're undoubtedly an important part of Mississippi's history, they're not the only people present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.131.19 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about West Florida? John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Make certain that you mention Mississippi has a history of extreme racism and reference the racist state flag image as evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.37.164 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This entire article is written very defensively. Special effort was taken to 'soften' the history of slavery and racism in Mississippi. I would suggest a complete rewrite using unbiased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.239.164 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a much more fleshed-out intro section. It's only a few sentences for crying out loud! Illegitimate Barrister 16:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Teen pregnancy
The section on teen pregnancy is no longer correct. In that section, this source (which is cited in the article) states on page 5 that "In 2009, Mississippi ranked highest in teen births with a rate of 64.2 births per 1000 females aged 15-19, compared to the national rate of 39.1 births per 1000 U.S. females aged 15-19." However, this source (p. 37) shows 2013 data, and the total births to females aged 15-19 is now higher in Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Re-writing the section to discuss Mississippi's success in moving to number four would be interesting, but I believe is out of the scope of this article. I suggest the section be removed. Thanks for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111015012701/http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html to http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513142502/http://www.leveeboard.org/about_the_levee/history/physical_development.html to http://www.leveeboard.org/about_the_levee/history/physical_development.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071202132723/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/seac/SoutheastChronicles/NISI/NISI%20Cultural%20Overview.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/SoutheastChronicles/NISI/NISI%20Cultural%20Overview.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721072426/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525202939/http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811145006/http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/techprogram/paper_172848.htm to http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/techprogram/paper_172848.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811145130/http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/techprogram/paper_178329.htm to http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/techprogram/paper_178329.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715060052/http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil:80/lakes/arkabutlalake/ to http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/Lakes/arkabutlalake/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310210717/http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil:80/Lakes/grenadalake/ to http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/Lakes/grenadalake/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310232752/http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil:80/Lakes/sardislake/ to http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/Lakes/sardislake/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928014532/http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/215983.html to http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/215983.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

POV
It would appear a bit of an Edit War is forming in reference to "Since April 2016, it is legal in Mississippi to discriminate against same-sex couples." Scarlettail points out that "The source does say the law allows discrimination, and that's how the law has been characterized," and personally I agree with this. However, to avoid further reverts, I think it would be helpful for us to reach a consensus on whether to refer to the bill as discriminatory or not. --Cawhee (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The most recent edits don't seem acceptable to me, as they reference the bill directly. The bill is not a secondary source. The wording that might be best for this situation is that the bill and its proponents claim it simply allows business owners to refuse service, but opponents have accused the bill as legalizing discrimination. That would cover both sides of the issue. Scarlettail (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Were slaves "African-Americans"?
A recent edit to one sentence was reverted and needs discussion. The sentence read:


 * Before the American Civil War, most development in the state was along riverfronts, where cotton plantations were cleared and worked by enslaved African Americans.

An editor changed that sentence to read:


 * Before the American Civil War, most development in the state was along riverfronts, where cotton plantations were cleared and worked by African slaves.

The edit was reverted.

This is a profound question. Were Mississippi slaves "Americans"? Many fled to Canada when they had the opportunity, and some even returned to Africa (eg. Liberia). I highly doubt that a first generation slave in the deep south would identify as American. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * they were deeply immersed in American culture, society, language and religion. They did not want to be slaves--no Americans did (as the Founders often said). (but very few escapees managed to get from Mississippi all the way to Canada--look at the map). The great majority of free blacks rejected the offer of free passage to Liberia. As for "first generation" (ie born in Africa) --those were rare in Mississippi -- most had been brought from eastern states.  A recent scholarly history is Black Life on the Mississippi: Slaves, Free Blacks, and the Western Steamboat World (U of North Carolina Press 2004) by Thomas C. Buchanan. It uses the term "African American" 273 times and "African" (without American) zero times. Rjensen (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

By legal definition slaves were not citizens. They did not become citizens (and by such African-American) until later. I think to call the slaves of the time "American" anything discounts the struggles, violence and injustice faced by the African slaves as they tried to assimilate into American culture.
 * Those are private POV views with no citation to any RS--I Note that "African Americans" is used by the RS. Trying to strip the slaves of their American identity is insulting--these folks refused to go back to Africa because they identified with America regardless of their legal status. Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You will also note that your RS was written in 2004, in the time of political correctness. As you can see in this PBS online article ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/education/history.html ) it draws a distinction between free blacks in the north ( referred to as African Americans and slaves in the south ( slaves or enslaved blacks ). It is also insulting to press American citizenship on people who might not wanted to be identifed as such...JLEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.179.204 (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * citizenship and voting rights = not the issue here. We have the RS that call the Missisppi slaves African Americans. You need to start reading the RS. here are quotes from RS: 1). "Like most Southern states, Mississippi's African-American population consisted largely of slaves." [Jennifer E. Cheeks-Collins - 2002 p 7]; 2) "notably African American participation in the fighting" [Timothy B. Smith - 2010  p 144]; 3) book title: African American Southerners in Slavery, Civil War and Reconstruction [Claude H. Nolen - 2005];  4) "This forced migration of African American slaves" [Ann Ostendorf - 2011]; 5) "African American slaves rallied around family and religion" [C. Sears - 2012]; 6) book title I Freed Myself: African American Self-Emancipation in the Civil War Era [David Williams - 2014];   7) book title: African American Slavery and Disability [Dea H. Boster - 2013]; 8) with emancipation "the clandestine gatherings of African American slaves and their participation in white churches gave way to the formation of black churches." [Hans J. Hillerbrand - 2012]; 9) "By the 1830s, hundreds of African American slaves labored on Indian-run plantations." [Susan Sleeper-Smith, ‎Juliana Barr, ‎Jean M. O'Brien - 2015]; 10) "settlers with agricultural aspirations brought African American slaves with them to all of the major river valleys that drain the state." [Gerald Milnes - 2015]; 11) "By the end of the war, David Blight estimates, “some 600,000 to 700,000 out of the nearly four million African American slaves had reached some form of freedom" [James M. McPherson - 2015].  Rjensen (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources differ on the nomenclature, though many do acknowledge a distinction between African-born and American-born slaves (Mississippi had both). Prior to Mississippi gaining statehood, slaves were brought directly from Africa to Natchez.  In later years, most slaves working on Mississippi plantations were American-born.  This author, writing about slavery in North America, described on p. 326 how the expansion of slavery on Lower Mississippi plantations led to a "reafricanization"; the author contrasting "African plantation slaves" with "assimilation-minded urban people of color".  However, this same author included in their notes (p. 381) that "African American" (with regards to slavery) has been used to refer to "black people of Native American birth".  The goal here is to provide an accurate and un-complicated description for readers of this Wikipedia article.  I would suggest the wording in this Wikipedia article be changed to "African-born and African-American slaves".  Doing so would make it obvious that the wording chosen was for identification only.  Magnolia677 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The author is Ira Berlin -- the passage you mention focuses on the Spanish period in Natchez before the US took over in 1798. Berlin strongly prefers "African American as in his next book entitled Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves (2004). Natchez was a transit point on the Miss. River, Berlin argues that plantation slaves were central to Mississippi state history & they came overland from eastern states & they came after 1814. (p 164)-- he notes the laws of slavery were imported from Georgia (166) -- he notes that a few slaved were (illegally) smuggled in from Africa (p 167).---he makes clear they were a small minority: "Ultimately they provided just a small fraction of the plantation labor force." see quote. He says p 168 "slaveholders substituted a legal inter-regional trade for an illegal international one". Using a "small fraction" of the slave population in 1810 to project to the entire slave population before 1865 in Mississippi, is a gross exaggeration and seriously misleads the reader. Perhaps the problem is a systematic denial of the Americanness of the Mississippi slave population--Dred Scott (1857) said they were not legally citizens. Agreed that a few Africans were brought in against the law. but to suggest that many of the slaves were not psychologically, culturally, or socially, 'Americans' makes them illegal immigrants of the sort who (right now in 2016) are targets for deportation in presidential political rhetoric. Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Inanimate insignia
Can someone who knows what they're doing please verify the "Inanimate insignia" section? I just reverted one obvious bit of vandalism, but I wonder if some of these other "official" things are kosher. ... richi (hello) 18:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Inanimate insignia section? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815134909/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517182743/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/cho0310.htm to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/cho0310.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/tables/NST-EST2015-01.csv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224151538/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
 * Added tag to http://censusviewer.com/city/MI
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019101552/http://www.americangaming.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/aga_sos2013_fnl.pdf to http://www.americangaming.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/aga_sos2013_fnl.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314192234/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101115449/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008142628/http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/96/religion-in-mississippi to http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/96/religion-in-mississippi
 * Added tag to http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/
 * Added tag to http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/travel/NYT_ALMANAC_US_MISSISSIPPI.html?ex=1162094400&en=27939e8b35b285fa&ei=5070
 * Added tag to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/sate.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704022312/http://www.dor.ms.gov/taxareas/property/advalor.html to http://www.dor.ms.gov/taxareas/property/advalor.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813212520/http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/293/nuclear-blasts-in-mississippi to http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/293/nuclear-blasts-in-mississippi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220170854/http://www.elvis.com/about-the-king/biography_.aspx to http://www.elvis.com/about-the-king/biography_.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117112542/http://taxfoundation.org/article/local-sales-taxes-add-significant-burden-consumers to http://taxfoundation.org/article/local-sales-taxes-add-significant-burden-consumers

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry
I am completely rewriting the section on the origin of the Delta Chinese community. The original section included the statement "The majority entering the state immigrated directly from China to Mississippi between 1910 and 1930, when they were recruited by planters as laborers." This is a vast oversimplification and misunderstanding of the source material, and there are multiple reasons why this statement is false.

One of the sources cited, from Vivian Wong, says "The majority of the Chinese who first settled in the Mississippi Delta arrived between the years 1910 and 1930. However...  the Chinese in Mississippi began much earlier, starting in the mid-1800s when a number of Chinese 'coolies' from Cuba were brought to the American South as a substitute for black labor" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25163098?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).

Loewen and Quan make similar statements about the first Chinese arriving in the 1870s as plantation workers to replace the African freedmen. More detailed studies of the Reconstruction-era economy in Moon-ho Jung's <Coolies and Cane> and John Rodrigue <Reconstruction In the Cane Fields> describe how the Chinese, the Italians, and other immigrants were hired as contract workers to replace the formerly enslaved Africans on the plantations, which was never successful. Instead, it was cheaper to rehire the African Americans and poor whites as sharecroppers, and the experiment with Chinese labor was abandoned by the end of the 1870s.

The majority of Chinese who arrived in Mississippi between 1910s and 1930s were not from China, and in fact, such a mass migration of foreign-born Chinese workers into the South would be legally impossible under Chinese Exclusion.  John Jung's book <Chopsticks in the Land of Cotton> and many of the online articles have interviewed specific families, so we know most Chinese families actually moved to Mississippi from other states between the 1910s and 1930s. There is no evidence whatsoever, in John Jung's book or any of the primary sources, that any of the Delta Chinese families are descendants of plantation workers. Winston Ho 何嶸 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Misssissippi" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misssissippi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"De Facto" Mississippi Flag
Beyond a single tweet, do we have any further verification of the use of the bicentennial flag in place of the recently retired former official flag? If the use of the bicentennial flag is not widespread, there are a variety of other designs that people and institutions have used to represent the state. I would say that if this flag appears in place of the former flag atop the Capitol building and in other "official" capacities, we should go with it. Otherwise, how do we establish which of the several de facto banners should appear? I can think of at least two right now, and I am sure there are others. Anwegmann (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I have reverted my edits depicting this image except for the article about the flag of Mississippi. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what are the two other flags you can think of now?Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The bicentennial and the Stennis flags. Those are the two most widespread I have seen. Anwegmann (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Found 2 odd presumably-promotional paragraphs in "Education" (which had been there since 2010/2012)!
I was reading the page and found 3 incorrectly-formatted paragraphs with oddly nonexistent footnotes. They both seemed overly promotional about two specific schools. Those paragraphs struck me as odd, so I did some digging through this article's page history!

• There was 1 paragraph on the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science (MSMS), written in October 2010 by a now-banned IP addresses whose only edits were trying to get this paragraph on the main Mississippi page.

• Right below it, there were 2 paragraphs on the Mississippi School of the Arts (MSA) written in February 2012 by an IP address whose only edits were adding that paragraph back when it was removed 3x.

The thing that made me notice them, however, was that they both had "[1]"s and "[2]"s and "[3]"s peppered in them with no actual footnotes, sources, or links. Presumably, the first user was trying to emulate the style of the rest of the article (with the paragraph blending in with the rest of it) without actually knowing how the references worked or connecting them to actual sourced – and the second one had the exact same, with the IP address presumably seeing the incorrectly-formatted promotional paragraph above (which no one had done anything about) and doing the same. They almost got away with it!

...Both paragraphs gave overly specific WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to 2 schools which aren't very relevant to the article at large (and aren't even mentioned at the Education in Mississippi page), and were presumably added by people with connections to the two schools. I've now removed those two paragraphs, as there wasn't much content to salvage that was relevant to the page at-large. But wow, Millions of people have read this article since 2010 and 2012 – I can't believe no one ever noticed these odd paragraphs until now! Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020
New flag needs to be added the governor signed law to remove confederate symbol from the flag so please add the flag without confederate symbol please 71.173.78.86 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Done the people will have to vote on the flag in Novemeber.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is still no officially approved design, and I don't think that having a flag is so essential that we'd need to include the stand-in design mentioned in the Guardian seen here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020
Flag needed it was on this article in March but was removed for no reason and needs to be added as wiki Should not be censored or else I will sue The owner of the wiki article due to no flag 2600:1000:B049:FB47:2D07:D2AD:533E:6017 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. The flag has been removed from state law by the governor.  This is not censorship, Mississippi really does not have an official flag right now. Mgasparin (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Miſsiſsippi River" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Miſsiſsippi River. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mississippi (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification: Housing in Mississippi
A request has been submitted to WikiProject Mississippi for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in Mississippi. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Mississippi flag?
The ballot measure passed, but is has the flag officially changed yet? I would think the results would have to be ratified by some body for it to become official no? —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so yet until the legislature passes it. Should be reverted pending that. Metallurgist (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, lad. State legislature has to officially adopt it after the voters approve it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the new flag is being flown across the state on top of government buildings, there is no reason for it not to be included here. There are dozens of examples of states and nations that never "formally/officially" adopted their symbolism but remain widely and officially known by it, and their display is included on Wikipedia. I think removing it until the state legislature takes action is pedantic and unnecessary. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. I'd suggest adding it to the infobox but describing it as de facto underneath. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Displaying it as such seems like a fair compromise solution to me. It seems odd that Mississippi is the only page on a US state to not include its state flag in the infobox. We could add a footnote stating that the legislature has yet to approve it. NateNate60 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Agree. It's unbefitting that Template:Country_data_Mississippi will not be updated until consensus has been reached on this. The flag is flying above Jackson as the state flag. --107.207.242.249 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Miſsiſsippi" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Miſsiſsippi. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Crazy Boy  826  19:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead
This article's lead could use some work. It's a little long and includes information that's not in the body. The lead is supposed to follow the body of the article. To justify the inclusion of some items (the 1963 assassination of Medgar Evers for example), those items need to be fleshed out in the body of the article. I'm adding the improve lead template until this is resolved. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I would also argue that the assassination is WP:UNDUE for the entirety of a state. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits by TheLionHasSeen on religion
Neither Mormons/Latter Day Saints or Jehovah Witnesses consider themselves Protestant. Nor do scholars of religion classify them as such - as they don't hold to the tenets of the Protestant Reformation.

. KlayCax (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be curious to review the academic sources cited by TheLionHasSeen. Is there a consensus or guideline that supports that conclusion? Nemov (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * and, aren't those primary sources. But what does academia state? That they are a subset of Protestantism. Read their respective Wikipedia articles, which while yes, showing they are Restorationist, are nonetheless Protestant and have the Protestant canon. The references are all over. Restorationism is a form of Protestantism. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have failed to really answer my question. I asked you to make make an academic or guideline case and telling us to read a Wikipedia article isn't exactly compelling to be fair. Nemov (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The World Factbook:
 * They classify Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses as distinct branches.
 * Attaching Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses as "Protestant" goes against longstanding precendent for demographic pages as well.
 * . KlayCax (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . The Wikipedia page cited by TheLionHasSeen claims the exact opposite: KlayCax (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . KlayCax (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . The Wikipedia page cited by TheLionHasSeen claims the exact opposite: KlayCax (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Stilted History
The History section of this article seems to be more a history of slavery and racial conflict in Mississippi than a history of the state. WmDKing (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Racial prejudice is certainly a well documented part of the history of Mississippi, but I agree this article could be structured better in presenting the full history of the state. Nemov (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)