Talk:Gainesville, Florida - Gainesville Health And Fitness

History. Boosterism will not stand.

Whoever is removing sentences on Koran burning and Rosewood, your redneck boosterism will not stand. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.26.113 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted again. Rosewood is not Gainesville; it's two counties away and has nothing to do with the city in any fashion. As for the scumbag you are trying to tie to the city, he has been denounced by almost every politician who represents the cityâ€"Republican, Democrat, or otherwiseâ€"and has no support outside of his little circle of fanatics in his church. Your fantastic POV-pushing is nothing more than vandalism, and I am going to request that the article be fully protected. I am an admin, but it would be inappropriate of me to protect the article because of my editorial history on it. Horologium (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If am the one engaged in vandalism, why am I the one willing to identify myself. All I want is for the POV warning to remain on the page. Do you deny it has been questioned? Lawrence P. Rockwood, PhD

P.S. I refer you to the work of Dr. David R. Colburn who served as Provost of the University of Florida. There was direct rail between Rosewood and Gainesville at the time and Gainesville residents were involved. I don't think I am having this discussion with an historian.

For the record: I am not a present or past member of the Chamber of Commerce, I own no property in the Gainesville area or own stocks in companies in the Gainesville area, and I have not been involved in Gainesville area politics or supported any Gainesville area politician for over thirteen years. I feel anyone who posts to or edits a municipal wiki should make a similar declaration. Will you? â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptrockwood (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no financial connection to the city of Gainesville in any way. I rent a house which is outside of the city limits, I have never supported any candidate for public office in the state of Florida (not even a bumper sticker), I don't own any stock in a company (unless my Thrift Savings Plan portfolio includes something; I don't know), and I am not a member (past, present, or future) of the Chamber of Commerce. In fact, I will be leaving Gainesville at the end of the year to move back to the Puget Sound region.

As to your PhD, how nice that you have one. Credentials don't impress me much, and Wikipedia does not give special weight to contributions from people with academic degrees, especially when they are adding in unsupported assertions which synthesize a link between an event which took place 88 years ago and the actions of a single deranged individual to create a blanket assertion of the city being a hotbed of intolerance. Gainesville may not be the extreme left-wing utopia which your congressional campaign espoused, but it is not a breeding ground for racism and xenophobia either.

I am not an historian (yet), but it doesn't take an historian to spot inappropriate synthesis. Wikipedia is not the university, where one is encouraged to create novel syntheses of data culled from other sources; Wikipedia requires an explicit connection made in a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed scholarly article, or even a newspaper or magazine article from a source which is generally recognized as a high-end source. You provided nothing at all, and since you didn't, I suspect that Dr. Colburn has not actually written anything connecting Rosewood and Terry Jones. (He has written the definitive text on the Rosewood massacre, which is extensively cited in that article, but not so much on Terry Jones and his little clutch of malcontents. Horologium (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in a dialogue. Lets narrow the focus. I think any reasonable person would conclude the POV of this page has been questioned a number of times, not only in the case of Rosewood or Koran burning, but the Gainesville murders. I do not know how much discussion from this discussion page was removed before mine or how many POV warnings have been removed before mine. I am not a perfect Wiki citizen and hope to be a better one as I learn more. I am putting up another POV warning and hope if you take it down will explain how you acts conform to Wiki policy, which is basically leave POV warnings alone and to let viewers refer to the discussion page. I am not going to argue details with you any more. You are right, Wiki should not defer to PhDs, nor should they defer to those who cry wolf first. However, they have limited resources. You can block me and probably get away with it, just don’t kid yourself about what you are doing. I would love Dr. Colburn's opinio n as th whether there should be a POV warning on this page. â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptrockwood (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, your tagging of the article as POV is only one ever added to the page; certainly in the four years I have had this page watchlisted, it has never been tagged as POV. (It's had other tags, primarily dealing with lack of references or the like.) And there is no way I could get away with blocking you; my extensive editing history on this article makes me a clearly involved editor, and I'd likely lose my admin privileges if I were to block you, regardless of whether the block was otherwise supported by policy. I would, however, go to the appropriate noticeboard and ask for the intervention of an uninvolved administrator; that was why you were blocked last time, because I reported you (and your IP address) for edit-warring at Wikipedia's Sockpuppet Investigations page.

You are trying to tie together several totally unrelated incidents, spanning almost 80 years, in an attempt to portray the city as racist and dangerous. That is synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. There is no place for original research on Wikipedia, only a dispassionate retelling of what other reliable sources have already stated. No source exists which will advance your narrative, which is constructed from a series of unrelated anecdotes. What happened in 1923 in Rosewood is only tangentially related to Gainesville; the sheriff in Levy County called for assistance from the sheriff in Alachua County. The KKK riots in Saint Augustine in 1963 don't have anything to do with Gainesville. Danny Rolling's murder spree in 1990 wasn't racist; it could be mentioned in a new "Crime" section along with the rape statistics (which are quite high, but university towns generally have higher rape rates than cities without large college populations). And as mentioned earlier , Terry Jones and his 30 followers don't represent the city of Gainesville at all, any more than Fred Phelps represents Topeka or Matt Hale represents Peoria. Gainesville has the most extensive civil-rights protection laws in the state of Florida, including protection of transgendered people, and the city commission is fully integrated, with an openly gay mayor. More importantly, your edit was not written in an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia (use of the second-person voice), and lacked cohesiveness with the chronological progression of the rest of the history section. Finally, your edits didn't contain any real citations; a link to the FBI crime statistics without any page references doesn't make it a reference, and the stuff about Rosewood, St. Augustine, Rolling, and Jones didn't have any citations at all. Note that even if you cite each of the above incidents, they still don't support your central thesis that Gainesville is a nest of violent racist yahoos. You need to find a source which says that, and I suspect that it is unlikely that such a source exists.

I will leave up the POV tag for a few days. You might want to consider a discussion on the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Noticeboard if you feel that this article lacks balance, or you can seek a Third Opinion from an uninvolved editor. Either option is fine with me, since I think we have both staked out our positions on the issue.

One last thingâ€"please sign your edits to talk pages by adding four tildes to the end of your posts.(~~~~) Sinebot will sometimes add a signature link if you fail to do so, but it doesn't always catch edits or patrol all pages, and unsigned posts on discussion pages are distracting and confusing. Horologium (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The topics you remove from this page are more relevant to this city than the invention of Gatorade and the history of the Gainesville Health and Fitness Center. That is obvious to anyone but the most extreme booster. Your denial of violence in the history of what Ted Bundy called his favorite city is a slap in the face of every women that has been raped or attacked in this rape capital of the world, including my wife. If you really feel rape and violence against women has not been a important issue for every family who ever sent a child to study in this town or decided against it than the history of gatoraid, provide a counter source to my source that you removed. I grew up in Gainesville since my father retired from the military in 1968 and have attended Littlewood Elementary, JJ Finely Elementary, Martha Manson, Westwood, St. Paticks, and Gainesville High School. My sister was severely beat up in the race riots in the latter in the early 1970s after the Confederate Flag was repeated allowed to be raised at that school. I attended Sante Fe Community College and the University of Florida and received a PhD in American history from the latter. Your denial of racial strife in this city leads subsequently to the denial of entire communities. Gainesville had a very unique segregated African American community that even has a current historical society. This community was created by the very history you deny. I am not a African American, but a proud son of parents who refused to stand for Dixie at Gator football games. My mother took a number of her children out of Gainesville schools because of the rampant racism of in Gainesville’s public schools. I challenge you to refer this dispute to anyone at the Department of History of the University of Florida before again removing the POV warning. I am no longer willing to waste my time arguing facts that you just take down. This page is not balanced and that is obvious. I admit, I have fought Gainesville booste rism my entire life and this page is the prime example of it. You may get away with blocking me again, but the shame is on you. \ One last thing: I have never been afraid to identify myself, I am Lawrence P. Rockwood, PhD. Who are you? History, no matter how problematic, is more interesting than Gatoraid. (Cptrockwood (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)).

Please stop attacking other editors of this article. We have a strong policy against personal attacks. The material you repeatedly added to the article expressed a strong personal point of view, in violation of our policy of neutrality. Credentials and status outside of Wikipedia don't impress most editors. What matters to us is the on-line contributions and behavior of editors. However, for the record, I lived in Gainesville through most of the 60s and part of the 70s, the period when integration finally came to Gainesville and to the University, and I am personally aware of the struggle involved. Gainesville was no worse, and probably better, than most places in the country during that time. My user name is my real name (that's a personal choice, but I understand very well why many editors choose to remain anonymous), and I also have a Ph.D., but that is irrelevant to my participation on Wikipedia. As I said before, what counts on Wikipedia is your on-line reputation. -- Do nald Albury 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop changing the subject, this is about the POV warning remaining on the page. I have authored a page has been upheld by wikipedia over and over again. It still has a POV warning because one person disagrees with it without either sources or facts. Even a link about the Gainesville murders by another poster that was previously on the page has now been taken down. There are people who do not agree with you. What is the basis of of the above editor, unlike me, not having to face those who do not agree with you.

I am insisting on no change to the page but that the POV warning should remain on the page. If the POV warning remains on the page, I will gladly replace this entire section with a short concise non-personal explanation on why the POV warning is on the page. This discussion has been aggravated by biases of more than one person. I will do my part.

Lawrence Rockwood >Cptrockwood (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)<

Note: If the POV warning remains on the page and the following remains on the discussion page, I have no objection to the above section being entirely removed.

Point of View Warning.

Many municipal focused pages can exhibit a tone of boosterism regardless of the intention of any single page editor or administrator. Many edits to this page have been reverted dealing with such topics as the recent Koran burning controversy, the Rosewood massacre, the Gainesville murders and the rates of predation against women in the city’s history. While many had yet to be referenced, there definitely was tone set that any unflattering item from the city’s history was going to be reverted. If there are no unflattering edits reverted or there is no agreement with this opinion over the next twelve months, I will remove this POV warning.. The placement of a POV warning does not represent the opinion of the administrators and always favors the concerns of those who place it, even when they are in the minority. >Cptrockwood (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)<

The Rosewood massacre is NOT a part of Gainesville's history, other than that the city was a place of refuge for many who escaped. (A mythic version of the story was known to many residents of Gainesville - I first heard about it in the mid 60s - but that does not make it a part of Gainesville's history.) Please present reliable sources for the other events that you think should be included in the history of Gainesville, and please stop trying to add your own interpretation and opinions about those events. As for the NPOV notice, it appears to me that you are the one who is trying to insert your personal point of view into the article. Wikipedia policy (which I admit is often breached, but that doesn't invalidate the policy) is that only material that is supported by reliable published secondary sources can be used in articles. Wikipedia is also a collaborative effort, based on editors reaching a (often rough) consensus on what an article should say. If you want to include ce rtain historical events to the article, please suggest them here, citing reliable sources. Please remember, also, that the policy at Wikipedia:No original research prohibits "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Please present your suggestions here on the talk page, and I (and I hope, others) will discuss them with you. -- Donald Albury 10:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, we have the subject changed from the incredible claim that this page, as it has been maintained, is non-biased. There have been inclusions of clear citations from the Justice Department of the extremely high rates of violent predation against women in he history of this city and they were removed. The citations on Gatoraid and the history of the Gainesville Health and Fitness Center were not. There is no reason to believe that similar research will not be removed in the future. Certain content is clearly more welcome than others. I have posted material to demonstrate that this page is being maintained in a biased manner and I have succeeded. While there is no claim of perfect objectivity being made on one side of this debate, the other side makes the incredible claim that this page is unbiased and this can be proven by merely by questioning the other side’s objectivity. There is a problem of logic here and it is the likely reason why the debate always moves off the s ubject at hand, the appropriateness of there being a POV warning on the page. I have done my part to take the personalism out of this debate. I see it was decided to restore the above section. I agree, transparency is more important than a false appearance of objectivity. Let reader decide. That is the purpose of a POV warning.Cptrockwood (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

No, you just don't get it. Nobody is claiming that this page is unbiased. However, you are trying to throw together a bunch of unconnected factoids, unreferenced and probably impossible to reference, intended to paint the city (and by extension, its residents) in an extremely negative fashion; you even recognize that above: "I admit, I have fought Gainesville boosterism my entire life..." Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views. Coming in here with an obvious agenda, asserting a bunch of statements with no reliable sources to back them up (especially when they are personal recollections and anecdotes), and accusing the other editors of ulterior motives is not a recipe for collaborative success, but rather a quick ticket to a topic ban or indefinite block. Wikipedi a articles are not supposed to be puff-pieces, but neither are they supposed to be a laundry list of a particular editor's grievances against the city. The Gainesville of your childhood in the 1960s bears almost no relation to the Gainesville of 40+ years later, and without some type of reliable sources to back up your statements, it's not going to go into the article, and moreover, you don't seem to understand that you cannot create a new thesis on Wikipedia; if you can find a source that states that Gainesville is a racist, misogynistic shithole, bring it up for discussion. Moreover, recognize that the history section should not be dominated by accusations of racism or violence; Wikipedia's policy om Neutral Point of View includes sections on undue weight, balance, and neutral tone; be mindful of them when editing.

There are a number of problems with the history section, which is under-referenced. It could probably use a rewrite. However, what you are proposing is not a dispassionate and encyclopedic record of the city's history, but a hatchet job about a city for which you pretty obviously harbor an intense hatred. I don't hold a brief for the city; I'm not a fan of the city commission's one-dimensional political diversity, for example, and as I have stated, I am moving away at the end of the year. However, from the rather extreme point you occupy, my neutral attitude towards the city is indistinguishable from boosterism and advocacy.

Keep in mind also that at least four editors have engaged with you here (Donald Albury and I have participated in discussions, and two other editors have undone some of your edits to the talk page.) All four of us have been here for quite a while and have demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. (Of the four, I have the shortest editing history and lowest edit count, with slightly over 16000 edits over four years of active editing.) Lecturing to us about how Wikipedia's NPOV policies work (inaccurately) is rather arrogant for someone whose editing history consists of 52 edits over a little more than two months. Horologium (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody is claiming that this page is unbiased." What refreshing honesty. Also your admission that my edits stood out not for lack of citations or sources, but content. It may very well be the case that to expect such a page of this to be anything but a booster ad for a city is foolish. I think Wikipedia should advertise itself as a booster service and not as an objective source of a city's history. If four administrators are fine with Wikipedia serving as a salesman for the Gainesville Health and Fitness Center and Gatoraid, that is a good argument that Wikipedia needs to change it name to Wikibooster and that it should stop misrepresenting itself. I have long given up any intention to edit the page itself. But I understand the administrators would rather keep fighting that battle rather then the issue of the POV warning. You cannot accept the fact you won your battle because in the process of winning that battle you lost the war and proved my first impressio n of the page was absolutely correct. All I want and all I am arguing for is that people understand that "Nobody is claiming that this page is unbiased." I have no problem if the POV warning is replaced with your wonderfully honest statement. (Cptrockwood (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

I saw the POV tag and this discussion. I combed through the article text with cptrockwood's concerns in mind. The only major "booster-y" text I saw was that about the "healthiest city." So I removed that, cleaned up some text here and there, and removed the POV tag.

I do think this article gives a reasonable and well-founded overview of the city, as appropriate for an encyclopedia. Things that I'd like to add if I knew more (or if I do a bit more research:

(1) Rewrite the paragraph about the "Berkeley of the South" and the Gainesville Eight case. I think the main idea of this paragraph is the (notable for a college town) general liberalness of the populace in a sea of southern conservatism. Maybe it needs another sentence about what the Gainesville Eight case was and how that links to the nickname "Berkeley of the South," and it certainly needs some sort of citation to that phrase.

(2) Add in another couple of sentences about gatorade and/or University of Florida football/athletics. So many people outside Gainesville and Florida inexorably link Gainesville with The Swamp on autumn Saturdays. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The history section does have some problems. For instance, it ignores everything between 1905 and 1960, and the town vs. gown tensions that resulted in the University prohibiting staff and faculty from being involved in city politics for many years. Calling Gainesville the "Berkeley of the South" was a stretch. While there were some large demonstrations in the early '70s, including one that attracted police from neighboring towns and counties and resulted in close to 350 arrests, no one was shot, no bombs went off, no buildings burned down (a fire set in Peabody Hall fizzled out before it caused any real damage), and William Kuntzler's "David against Goliath" speech on campus was a dud. There was civil rights and anti-war activism in Gainesville and at the University, and integration did not always proceed smoothly, but while these things should be covered in the article, they were not unique to Gainesville, nor particularly notable outside of Gainesville, and so only need mi nimal coverage. Of course, finding good reliable published sources for all of that may be a problem. I certainly don't want to rely on my memory for details from 35 to 50 years ago. Maybe I can find things in old copies of the Gainesville Sun, but coverage in books is going to be rare. -- Donald Albury 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have identified two articles in The Gainesville Sun which should help on that front: Gainesville in the 1970s and University of Florida: Unrest amid the boom times: 1960-1980, which should help flesh out the history section. This is finals week (and I am taking seven courses this semester), so I really don't have much time to break these down and expand the empty space in the history section, but I will take care of it next week if someone else doesn't handle it first. I *have* been trying to fix this section, despite the bad-faith accusation of some editors here. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not put up the POV warning again myself. I have done all one individual should do and, unfortunately, a little more. If no one else can see what I see, I am a fool. Gatoraid and the Swamp is all Gainesville is about. I could not say anything more insulting about this city if I tried. However, anyone whose edit is removed because it is not flattering to this city or if you believe this page is unbalanced, please place a POV warning and make some remarks here. It is easy. (Cptrockwood (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Please note, this page has been substantially edited to the benefit of the content censors. Not only do we not have objectivity, we do not have transparency. Changes to the page itself, at least, make it look more professional (Cptrockwood (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

POV notice

I have removed the POV notice that was recently re-added to the article page. There has been previous discussion here about whether the notice was necessary, but no discussion since it was removed. If someone wants to add it again, I think they should come here first for a discussion. -- Donald Albury 22:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And the notice has been restored again without even a peep here. Unless there is discussion here of real issues, I do not see any reason for leaving the notice on the page. -- Donald Albury 10:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am not a fool. It did not take long for another person to agree about booster tone of this page. (Cptrockwood (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

Gainesville is not a Berkeley. The rape rate for the former is 1.56 times the National Average and the latter is 0.42 times the National Average. Violence against women in this city has been of historical importance. Anyone who sends a daughter to this town to school who is raped or murdered should be able to sue the censors of this page. Data Source: 2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement (Cptrockwood (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

While I feel that calling Gainesville "the Berkeley of the South" was overblown, the statement is given as a quote from Marshall Jones, cited from a reliable source. I would also note that at the time Jones was referring to, student activism at UF was as prevalent, if not more so, than any other large school in the South. Can you point to a reliable source that says women are at high risk of sexual violence in Gainesville, and that this fact is of historical significance? You can cite published crime statistics, but your own analysis of what those statistics mean is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you don't consider the "FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement" a reliable source. I would like you to discuss that. Identical sourced content was removed from page itself. I feel any attempt to edit this page is useless. That is why I want the POV warning. Please go on record and say you feel sexual violence against women in Gainesville is not of historical significance. That is is of less significance to those considering sending a child to study in Gainesville than the booster material on the page. Please go on record that you really believe this. I do not mind if my posting to the page is edited to adjust tone, but the constant removing of a whole category of material from the page is censorship and a POV warning as been earned by this page. (Cptrockwood (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

It would help if you provided a link to the FBI report, or enough information to allow a casual reader to find the report in a library. A statistical report does not in and of itself establish historical significance. Moreover, it is not for you or me to say whether or not Gainesville is particularly unsafe for women compared to similar cities. You need to find at least one reliable source that supports that statement. Remember, everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. No original research is allowed, which means that editors are not allowed to insert their opinions or analysis into articles. Neutral point of view means that verifiable material must be present in a balanced manner. If reliable sources conflict on a subject, we note the differences in the article, without giving undue weight to fringe positions. Now, again, please cite reliable sources for your statements. -- Donald Albury 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is web hosted by DOJ and found all over the web. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_06.html. It is not the sources that are in question and you know it. You could not do a simple Google before going into lecture mode again. Again in 2009, Gainesville had a rate of 57.5 rapes per 100,000 compared to Berkeley’s 27. Why don’t we defer this argument to subject matter experts? UF/SFCC NOW Rape Action Committee; P.O. Box 2235; Gainesville, FL 32602-2235 You just cannot admit this page has been censored in a biased manner. Put the POV warning back up and give it a rest. (Cptrockwood (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I have no objection to citing the crime statistics in the article (although I cannot speak for others), but any commentary, analysis, discussion of significance, or comparison with other cities will require citations to reliable sources. Neither you nor I, nor any other editor, can provide analysis or commentary on the crime statistics that is not supported by reliable sources. You cannot use Wikipedia to make an argument that has not already been presented in a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you cannot talk for others. But you carry water for those who have removed the same content and sources under discussion by going along with taking down the POV warning. Sources as solid as any other on the page have been taken down because of content they were associated with were unflattering to the city. If you agree that the content is of historical significance, you have to agree with me on the POV warning. You cannot have it both ways.(Cptrockwood (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

No, I do not agree that the 2009 crime statistics are of historical significance. And, no, I do not have to agree with you about the POV warning. Current or very recent crime statistics can be found in some articles about cities, particularly where there has been significant coverage in the press about crime in that city. I am not aware of significant coverage of crime in Gainesville that compares it to other cities or that states that any type of crime is more prevalent than elsewhere. If you want to talk about the historical significance of crime in Gainesville, note that I have recently added something about the situation in Gainesville in the later part of the 19th century, when the town seemed to match the common image of a town in the Wild West. Also note that I cited a published history of Gainesville for that material. -- Donald Albury 09:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I re-added the POV notice, because clearly this article biased in favour of those who wish to boost this locale for economic reasons.--Plato 09:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And I will remove it again, as you have failed to provide any specifics of what you think needs to be fixed, and the consensus has been to remove it. -- Donald Albury 09:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean if we stick to the 19th century, we can have something approaching objective history on this site? (Cptrockwood (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC))

I'm waiting for another book to come in, hopefully today, before working on the history after 1900. Hildreth and Cox does cover up to 1979, but I would like to have a second comprehensive source to work from (Hicks, Pickard and Rajtar are spotty, useful only for some details). -- Donald Albury 10:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this discussion page has been edited to make it appear there has been less support of the POV warning remaining on the page itself than is the historical case. This makes those us demanding its restoration appear more extreme while again proving the correctness of our position. The general public are not seeing the entire discussion to the benefit of those defending taking down the POV warning. In the secret section I agreed to hold off on the issue of the POV warning until the rewriting of the history section is complete. If the completed section includes the historical significance of violence against women in this city, I agreed to accept the POV warning being removed. I am the only one who has proposed any attempt at compromise. The response is that one of the editors admitted that if the history of violence in Gainesville would “attract tourists,” it would then be historically significant. I think the general public as a right to see this discussion. (Cptrockw ood (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Unhelpful edits

I've reverted Plato on the article page. If that user did not agree with Horologium's reversion of Mark Sublette's addition, the proper action was to bring it up here. I also reverted the POV temp, as Plato has yet to discuss here why that template should be on the article page, and the consensus of prior discussion and action was to remove it. -- Donald Albury 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I look foward to the completion of the ongoing update of the section. The POV warning issue should pause a reasonable amount of time for the completion of that effort. I think a consensus is not enough when there are numerious dissents in reference to questions of boosterism or "peacocking" cities. If the historical significance of violence against women in Gainesville is to be addressed, I would be willing to defer on other issues. (Cptrockwood (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

Please cite the sources you feel support the statement that violence against women is of historical significance in Gainesville. Bare crime statistics do not establish historical significance. Neither do isolated news reports of violence again women. Even a notorious crime spree such as that of Danny Rolling does not in and of itself establish a pattern of violence against women in Gainesville. Commentary on the subject in published reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines and/or books would help. Some Web sites may also be useful, but Web sites, as well as print publications, have to meet the Wikipedia standards for reliability. We also have to be cautious about using material from advocacy groups. Even using reliable sources, we have to watch for and try to balance biases in sources. I have had to rely in large part on Hildreth and Cox's History of Gainesville, Florida, while remaining aware of its shortcomings. I hope to research back issues of the Gainesvi lle Sun, which may help document specific events, but newspaper articles usually don't provide much historical perspective. There may be some useful items in the journals of historical societies, but I don't have easy access to them. There are some theses and dissertations at the University of Florida on the history of Gainesville, but until they are published, I can't use them (and in any case, I don't have access to most of them).

Gainesville was a frontier town until the 20th century, with the attendant violence, but that was true for Florida in general. Today the city has the problems of a fairly small urban area. The history of violence in Gainesville is often glossed over, but that is true of most places, unless they have embraced their violent history to attract tourists. I find it interesting that the most commonly cited activity of the Klan in Gainesville in the 1920s and 1930s was burning down whorehouses. I find it hard to believe that the Klan did not take action against blacks in Gainesville (I don't count parades, the Klan was always parading), but I have have found nothing saying so. I can't put something in the article for which I cannot cite a reliable published source. -- Donald Albury 12:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, case proven. If the history of violence in Gainesville would “attract tourists,” yu are arguing it would be historically significant. Put the POV warning back up. (Cptrockwood (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Improving the Article

• More details are needed about the University of Florida and its effect on the Gainesville economy. Historical details about how the university has shaped the city might also be good as well. Jccort (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have information from reliable sources, add it. My understanding is that the University played only a small role in the growth and economy of Gainesville until after WWII. I do intend to add more about the role of the university community in Gainesville politics (which only became significant from the 1960s on). However, the Hildreth and Cox history only goes up to the 1970s, and I haven't found much on the history and economy of Gainesville since then. -- Donald Albury 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Government and Politics

Right now, the page deals very little with the government and politics of the city and what few edits are made (such as one I just reverted) are one-sided. I feel as though the page should have a "Government and politics" section with a greater exploration of the format of city government, elected officials and the "issues of the day" in Gainesville. Thoughts? --Absenteeist â"‰ â'¸ 06:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the page deals very little with the government and politics of the city and what few edits are made (such as one I just reverted) are one-sided. I feel as though the page should have a "Government and politics" section with a greater exploration of the format of city government, elected officials and the "issues of the day" in Gainesville. Thoughts? --Absenteeist â"‰ â'¸ 2:50 am, Today (UTCâˆ'4)

True, the page deals little with city government and politics. However, the sentence deleted follows these two sentences in the same paragraph: "The Gainesville MSA was ranked as the #1 place ..." "Gainesville was also ranked as one of the ..." Therefore "Additionally, Gainesville has been cited as the 5th ..." Strikes me as analogous to the two previous, retained sentences; perhaps commence the sentence with "Gainesville was ranked, additionally, ..." would be better stylistically since it is parallel to the two above lines. So, unless you reply with a good reason to not so do, later today I'll add the line back, using better phrasing.

As for POV, the preceding 2 lines are also biased, albeit in a positive way; if they were balanced with negatives, then my added sentence should likewise be balanced with something positive, but the former are not, so the latter is strictly parallel.

The article thus far has a very positive POV and largely reads as a promotion for the city; adding a negative aspect actually helps neutralize a POV.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if reliable sources support the material. I think we should avoid ephemeral issues, however. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and I think we should avoid "issues of the day" that no one will care about in ten years. What is "encyclopedic" is, of course, open to discussion. -- Donald Albury 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The added and removed sentence is no more (or less) ephemeral than the preceding two sentences and, actually, is more recent (2009) than the preceding sentences (both 2007). As noted in my above comment (inserted there subsequent to an edit conflict) I intend tonight, unless it's argued persuasively why I shouldn't, to revert the deletion, albeit editing it to make its style more parallel the preceding sentences.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC) (in flight on an airplane and a bit typing challenged)

Then all three should be deleted. They are ephemeral awards and condemnations that won't be relevant in a decade, as Mr. Albury said. Wikipedia is not a news source, and I doubt this meal limit issue will be relevant even next month, considering it's coming before the commission soon. Unless you'd object, Mr. Lipsio, I'll go ahead and replace the year-specific awards with more general information about the city's demographics and facts? ----Absenteeist â"‰ â'¸ 16:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting all three sentences is reasonable, IMHO, as they all are ephemeral awards and may make some sense in the context of the city's history, but not where they are in the introductory paragraphs.

As to whether the meal limit issue will be relevant next month, I rather doubt that much will change, as the City Commission has been dragging its feet on the matter and postponing dealing with the latest proposal, but time will tell whether or not my doubts are well founded and, at any rate, the city will always have historically held these distinctions as it has many others, both good and bad, over its history.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gainesville, FL: EPA Koppers/Beazer East Gainesville Superfund

[ http://www.alachuacounty.us/depts/epd/pollution/pages/soildata.aspx.  ] Gainesville, FL is home to a large EPA Superfund site - Koppers/Beazer East Gainesville Superfund Gainesville, Florida. The University of Florida sits within a 1-2 mile radius of this EPA Superfund site. â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.49.209 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Vickie in Florida (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gainesville, Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605180841/http://www.blender.com//guide//61220//thebestlist2008travel.html to http://www.blender.com/guide/61220/thebestlist2008travel.html

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. â€"^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gainesville, Florida. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.co.alachua.fl.us/assets/uploads/images/bocc/

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.â€"InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gainesville, Florida. 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/20131019235623/http://www.census.gov:80/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012-3.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416173242/http://www.nationalgeographic.com:80/adventure/relocating/best-places-to-live-2007/city/city.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/relocating/best-places-to-live-2007/city/city.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810144817/http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/PlanDevel/RSAC/Mtg2files/Premtg/1985%20Inventory.pdf to http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/PlanDevel/RSAC/Mtg2files/Premtg/1985%20Inventory.pdf

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.â€"InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)