Talk:Mississippi

Archives
2007 2008

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. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^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. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^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. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^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 [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 | stuff )} 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. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^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. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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)

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. AlexiusHoratius 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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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. AlexiusHoratius 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'. AlexiusHoratius 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. -

✰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 [[1]]. 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 (Wikipedia: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. - ✰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#Gay_and_Lesbian_Community 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. AlexiusHoratius 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)

:::That's it, no one insults a whole nation and gts away with it. 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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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. - ✰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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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. :] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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)

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! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^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.”[2]

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. -- Banjeboi 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. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 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. -- Banjeboi 05:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You have neglected to read WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 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

Fergus Walsh (2008-01-03). "The fattest state of the union: If you want to look at obesity trends, then the US is the place to visit". BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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."[3]

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. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 20 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. -- Banjeboi 21:40, 21 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)

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)