User talk:Annie ATL

while I certainly appreciate the facts you've established for "Historic Brookhaven" never having objected before to the use of the term "Brookhaven" outside of their small neighborhood, the text as it reads now does not reflect the neutral point of view required for Wikipedia. Do you think that you can rewrtie it slightly so that it is neutral? Keizers (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the objected part and struggle to see the neutrality point you raised - this is the first reported time that Historic area residents have objected to the name. I search the internet high and low on this and all I found were the references in their own neighborhood association promoting Brookhaven businesses outside of the historic area and their article re: where to send money to do the feasibility study. I can see revising the sentence re: how the newsletter seemingly supports the new city. Perhaps simply reporting that the newsletter announces the information re: the proposed city, the interest concerning tax control and how to donate? Would that address your concerns? As to Lindsey’s unilateral change, that was reported by the media as such and he admitted he picked the name himself without anyone's particular input. I recognize that to someone who has not followed these developments it may not seem neutral but as crazy as it sounds, those are the facts. Please let me know what you think. I'd gladly continue this dialogue. --Annie ATL (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I follow this at a high level and agree, it was a very sudden standpoint from Lindsey and it is not yet clear to the rest of us if there is even backing within the Historic Brookhaven community. I just changed the tone of it slightly - see if you agree.!!!! What an arrogant, arrogant, man to come up with a name himself and impose it on others, who does he think he is? Anyway in Wikipedia, we have to try to remain neutral and only include statements documented elsewhere. Keizers (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did a second edit to try to make it further neutral. For example saying "residents won't get to vote on the name" is not a neutral as saying "the choice of city name will not be on the ballot". Similarly, should not mention that HB residents "patronize the establishments' because that implies that by patronizing them they approve of the Brookhaven name, which may or may not be the case - Wikipedia is not the place to draw such a conclusion. Keizers (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I can live with your changes. I note that the line re: how residents will not be able to vote was not mine - it was there when I added the info re: the lack of reported objections to the use of the Brookhaven moniker. IN keeping up with the spirit of Wikipedia, I'm wondering if we shoudl revise the "there is no previous evidence" to "there are no reports that" (re: opposition). Evidence implies an in-depth search for information. WHile I search the web in-depth, there may well be 1930's objections that are not noted. SO rather than say evidence, I think I'd go back to reports. I"ll make the change and you can tell me what oyu think. --Annie ATL (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing is crazy regardless of where people stan on the cityhood issue. The City of Roswell is larger than Historic Roswell. There are plenty of other places like that in the state.