Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Skyline picture

While there is another picture of Louisville's skyline further down on the page, I can't help but find disgust with the gloomy river shot photo that pops up as soon as you enter this page. I know copyright issues might be a problem, But can we please get a new Photo up there. If it's at all possible could someone upload the photo of the planned 2010 skyline which has the new Arena and Museum Plaza renderings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.200.135 (talk)

I'm all for a better, free image of the skyline. However, I would oppose any renderings of the future skyline. An encyclopedia is about what is, not what will be. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I'm supposed to post photographs, but you're more than welcome to use one that I've taken free of charge as long as I am credited. {link removed due to request from author}

examples:

{link removed due to request from author}

{link removed due to request from author}

-Lizzie Morrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by LizzieMorrison (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stats

As of right now the article has about 6,700 words of prose (44,000 characters). While the total file size is ever-expanding, a lot of this is just due to improved referencing. There's still a lot of work to do on the article but we should probably keep the quantity of prose roughly where it is now. I'm mostly leaving these numbers here as a note to myself. --W.marsh 17:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about that. There are plenty of other much larger articles in the Wikipedia, such as Kentucky (maybe they are too big). The long list of todo's makes me think we have quite a bit more to cover, or at least mention and link to other articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Utilities

The power plant pictured is Cane Run NOT Mill Creek. ROBZZZ

• Thanks for the correction... you are correct. I have updated the article. If anyone wants verification this link should do it: [1] --W.marsh 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

airport stats

The airport stats (under "transportation") seem a bit low and I think might be as old as 1999! Researching them is a bit confusing, so if there happens to be an air geek around they might be able to do it a bit faster than me. But I'll untangle it one of these days. At any rate inline citations would be helpful in that paragraph. --W.marsh 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History -- slavery

I am very sensitive to the issue of slavery in Louisville's history, and I have personally made sure it is well-covered in the History of Louisville, Kentucky article. I think that given this is the main Louisville article, we should cover the most notable of Louisville history subjects, and therefore this particular subject should be kept up in a robust manner in the history article (and History of slavery in Kentucky as well) and removed from here to reduce the heft of the article. Any objections? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• The wording currently suggests Louisville's role in the slave trade and slave population was notable, so I think at least some mention should be preserved. But I could see it being reduced to a part of a paragraph on antebellum Louisville in the spirit of keeping the section a general overview. --W.marsh 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess that sounds reasonable. Thanks for your input. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For starters I'm black and I have contributed to this subject on this page earlier this year. Anyway I think that the word "slave trade" just be reworded to "slave populations" as my earlier source had stated or Steve can just add in both! Louisvillian 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Louisville, Kentucky is the article to provide more complete coverage of Louisville's history. For the main article, we choose the most key historical points so this article stays in check in terms of length. Slavery in Louisville and Kentucky gets very decent coverage in the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Dude just stop it, you had a problem from the get go with my add on about Louisville's slave population, so I sourced it. If you're going to delete anything make it your own contribution. I added the sourced contribution to this not the other article. So I would like for my original text stating Louisville had one of the largest slave populations in the South to remain as it was THANK YOU! Louisvillian 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in History of Louisville, Kentucky. Besides that, the reference is not very strong to back up the point. I'm afraid I'm never backing down from this. The main article needs to stress main article points. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up, I did need to reword it, as there's not any information in the website or the Encyclopedia of Louisville that says that Louisville as a city had one of the largest numbers of slaves. Of course, the 10,000+ number is verifiable, and according to Wikipedia standards, that's a keeper. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Louisvillian, your reference does not back up the point you're trying to make! If you can find a much better reference that shows Louisville had one of the very largest (like top five) numerical slave populations for a city in 1860, then that would be notable for a main article. If you don't cool off your edit war, I will get a Third Opinion to help out. I'm not playing this game with you. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve we've already been through this and it's apparent that you know there's nothing wrong with the source (other then your own opinion) which is why you ultimately stated it complies with wikipedia rules and if we're going to nit pick with sources I can easily go raise Hell over on the Kentucky article. In any means I can pickl and choose between these sources below quite a few more which confirm that the city of Louisville had one of the largest slave populations in the South, for the simple on every one of them Louisville is at the top of the scale.[2] [3] [4] And as far as you assigning the criteria for the source umm no! These maps are more credible certainly get the job done (since they do name the few large Southern cities) In any means I'm not in the mood to give out a history, But I will if this persist. Steve I can easily get another "buddy" to get involved, so do what do!Louisvillian 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It hardly had the "largest slave populations in the south." The map shows a much greater spread of higher slave density in Lexington than in Louisville, and other south and southeastern counties had far larger populations. A map, which does not show total statistics but only generalizations, cannot be used as a main attributing source unless there are other verifiable sources. Also of note, your empty threats of "raising hell" for the pure spite and including "buddies" (sockpuppets?) is very much frowned upon at Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All one needs do is look at Louisvillian's contributions for proof of prior raising hell. This isn't new. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided a final WP:3RR warning for his continued edit warring. It's obvious that others have been reverting his biased edits as well, so it's just not "us." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks like Third Opinion is going to be needed unless we can come to a consensus. It doesn't matter what anyone agreed to before, as sometimes things are agreed to in order to pause a conflict and have some semblance of stability. But the problem is that while Louisville indeed had more than 10,000 slaves in 1860, there is nothing to back up that Louisville had one of the biggest slave populations in the South. None of the maps you have provided clearly demonstrate a fact like that -- and requiring a reader to interpret a map (when most cannot) is tantamount to original research, which is not allowed in the Wikipedia. Your interpretation of various maps does not make a verified encyclopedic point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Weelll I did find a site which ranks counties and independent cities by their 1860 slave population and of the South's largest cities louisville was number 6 while lexington was number 7 [5] With that said a little rewording indicating that amoungst the South's cities Louisville had one of the largest slave populations would certainly do. If push comes to shoves we can just include both the map and the ranking table. Louisvillian 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The link you just gave goes to an error page, and we already said why the maps won't work. If you indeed have a ranking table (that's acceptable as a reference) that shows Louisville as number 6 in numerical slave population, then that definitely would change the nature of this discussion, and likely in favor of the content you want to add back. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Louisville by no means at all had "one of the largest slave populations in the South." That's absurd nonsense of the highest degree; I'm quite sorry if that truth offends User:Louisvillian, but it's the truth, and all of the "hell-raising" in the world can't dispute it. And I actually have credible sources to back me up instead of insults and childish fits. First of all, the only proper way to consider this is percentage-wise, not really absolute numbers. User:Louisvillian will deny this, but it is irrefutable that a county of 2,000 residents, 1,000 of whom are slaves, is much, much more affected by slavery than a county of 90,000 residents, with 10,000 slaves. Jefferson County's population was only around 11 percent slave, a small minority indeed compared to areas in the Deep South that were plurality or majority slave. Kentucky had a very small percentage of slaves, but even Fayette County, despite only having a population of 22,500 in 1860, had a virtually identical slave population as Louisville (only about 200 fewer slaves), making it approximately 50% slave. Do not let User:Louisvillian ignore this fact. Simple math:

Jefferson County 1860 population: 89,404 (straight from Wikipedia)

10,000 / 89,404 = 11.18%

Fayette County 1860 population: 22,599 (again, from Wikipedia)

10,000/22,599 = 44.25%

The absolute number of 10,000 was not "remarkable" either. The following quotes are from an article published in The Phylon Quarterly, an academic journal published by Clark Atlanta University. The article I'm quoting is "The Black Urban Population of the Pre-Civil War South", written by Jane Wilkie and published in 1976. It's on JSTOR and accessible here - [[6]]. I will happily provide a copy of it to non-students or people who don't have access to JSTOR:

Page 257 - ...of the ten major cities that Wade studied, the proportion of the population which was black was highest in South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia...urban decline [among blacks] was greatest in the border states and least likely to occur in the cities of the Old South."

And here are some random slave populations from various counties. The numbers are from the Historical Census browser at UVA, accessible here - [[7]] . You can look at the aggregate number of slaves by state, and by county. Amazing tool.

Slave Population, 1860 (remember, Jefferson County = 10,000)

Adams County, MS - 14,292 Carroll County, MS - 13,808 Claiborne County, MS - 12,296 De Soto County, MS - 13,987 Hinds County, MS - 22,363 Hancock County, MS - 19,241 Holmes County, MS - 11,975 Burke County, GA - 12,052 Chatham County, GA - 14,807 Houston County, GA - 10,755 Monroe County, GA - 10,177 Troup County, GA - 10,002 Orleans Parrish, LA - 14,484 Pointe Coupee Parrish, LA - 12,903 Charleston County, SC - 37,290 Beaufort County, SC - 32,530 Davidson County, TN - 14,790 Shelby County, TN - 16,953

Lest User:Louisvillian attempts to make the pointless argument that "Louisville had a big slave population for cities" - note that (1. Areas around modern-day Memphis, Nashville, Charleston, New Orleans all surpassed Louisville at the time, BUT (2. There were very, very few larger cities in the South as of 1860 - again, common sense. In fact, only New Orleans was in the USA's top 10 at the time - so if anything, Louisville's size as of 1860 proves, again, that it's a border city with a strong Midwestern influence, reflected in the relatively minor role of slavery, not a Southern, agrarian one. The major cities of 1860 were nearly exclusively in the Free States, so it would have been quite impossible for there to be major slave populations in “Southern urban areas” – when “Southern urban areas” simply did not exist. Charleston, Atlanta, Memphis, Norfolk, Richmond, Nashville...all of them had under 50,000 residents as of 1860. So...I’m not seeing where he’s going with this point, other than another attempt to paint a Southern veneer on Louisville. Literally tens of dozens of rural counties across Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama far, far surpassed Louisville's 1860 slave population.

I'm black too, by the way, and I have very little appreciation for User:Louisvillian attempting to "play the race card" to substantiate his baseless arguments. Nonsense is nonsense, regardless of the skin color of the person spewing it.

--Gator87 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gator87, that was an excellent presentation that is very convincing. Perhaps History of Louisville, Kentucky should be modified a little to put the 10K number in the context you describe. It doesn't even compare enough to several listed counties of the South to even come close to suggesting it had one of the largest numerical slave populations.

Even though Louisville's slave population in 1860 is a worthy data point to show in the history article, it's hard to think of why it belongs in the main city article (here), unless perhaps in a comparison with the other major cities of the entire nation. But then, that could be an obvious point, given Louisville's Southern-leaning bordering location. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support that proposal. While slavery did certainly play an important role in Louisville's ante-bellum history, it is simply not accurate historically to attempt to illustrate that slavery played as major a role in Louisville as in heavily black cities like Richmond or Charleston. Furthermore, Kentucky's total lack of a cotton plantation system meant that Louisville served principally as a "distribution center for slaves" of sorts; many of the slaves in Jefferson County weren't there for long periods of time and faced the dreaded trip south to plantations in Georgia, South Carolina, etc. Dozens of historical sources will validate this. A brief overview in the main article, with a more thorough and appropriately cited discussion in the History article, should suffice.

--Gator87 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. It would also solve the current manufactured controversy as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be doing the Forecastle Festival downtown today, so I don't have the time to attack this today. Please Gator87 or Seicer or anyone have at it if you have the available wikitime. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Gator if you would have read my last post I said that rewording was neccesary to comply with the findings in the source. I was talking more along the lines of the South's largest cities ( within the top 50 according to the 1860 census). Of those cities Louisville ranked 7th (I read it wrong earlier) and Lexington ranked 8th Numerically I'm not tallking percentagewise Gator and for some strange reason you always resort to this argument (as you did on citydata.com) when that is not the focus! I'm well aware that the city of Louisville relied on slavery no where near as much as some rural county in Georgia and I have stated this over and over again.

"2. There were very, very few larger cities in the South as of 1860 - again, common sense. In fact, only New Orleans was in the USA's top 10 at the time - so if anything, Louisville's size as of 1860 proves, again, that it's a border city with a strong Midwestern influence, reflected in the relatively minor role of slavery, not a Southern, agrarian one."

Not to sure where you're going with this one, But I'm guessing you're saying that because Louisville was a large industrial city that it couldn't have been Southern, while totaling ignoring the fact that New Orleans at the time had over twice our population! In any means I'm not about to debate you on this topic "here" as I will quickly be accused by Steve and or Seicer of off topic forum chat or whatever, so if you wish to continue your point we both have active accounts on citydata.com and last time I checked you just dropped out the debate after I chewed your argument to pieces (this one being one them). This talk page should stay on topic and the topic is rather or not LOL I have found a proper source (according to Steve), so I found a query that ranks this data in such a manner. In any case I really don't expect you (Gator) to show since you can't drag your peanut gallery along with you so..yeah! [8]

These were the South's largest cities according to the 1860's census

Baltimore 212,418

New Orleans168,675

St. Louis160,773

Louisville 68,033

Charleston 40,522

Richmond 37,910

Mobile 29,258

Memphis 22,623

Savanah 22,292

Willimington 21,258

Petersburg 18,266 [9]

According to the results of the query (which is based on the 1860 census) this how these cities ranks according to numerical slave populations

Charleston- 37,290

Richmond- 20,041

Memphis -16, 953

Savanah- 14,807

New Orleans- 14,484

Mobile 11,376

Louisville -10, 304

Baltimore- 2,218

Wilmington De- 254

Petersburg- 4,997

St. Louis- 4,346

[10].

The rankings came from a query result and at the time I'm not sure how to properly save those results and make them viewable! If anyone has any info on how to present to this talk page it would be appreciated.

Race Card what in the Hell are you talking? Steve was the first one to being up the sensitivity of slavery, and I merely pointed out that I was black (as I've seen his picture and he isn't) and I'm somewhat sensitive to the subject as well. My goodness talk about running with a lie. LOL continuing to amuse your little peanut gallery I see!

BTW you're right Gator many of Kentucky's slaves were "sold down river" which refers to the directly to Louisville's slaves being shipped New Orleans (Wikipedia). Interestingly enough Louisville in 1840 was ranked 5 on that list acording to query of the total slave population. As you probably know (I'm asuming) Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and the Upper South in general before the final two decades of Slavery held the bulk of the South's slaves. Due to the discovery that the true "black belt" (region of Central Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia known for their fertile soil) of Alabama blacks from the Upper South were shipped further South. Before this event Kentucky's slave percentage was between 25%-26% of the population. Interestingly enough in 1840 when Jefferson's county's population was 36,346 it's slave population was 8,596, making slaves account for 23.6 of the population. [11]. WIth that said there was more then one chapter of Slavery in Louisville and in Kentucky. As one can see prior to 1860 Slaves made up nearly a quarter of Louisville's population, from there the percentage city, county, and staewide decreased, But there the numerical population only increased.

Louisvillian 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As he is outnumbered here and is no longer edit-warring on this page, I'm not going to address Louisvillian's rants.

I just checked the article for Charleston, South Carolina, and Charleston's slave history, of legendary proportions, isn't discussed at all on its main page. Now, if Charleston's slave history is not mentioned on its main page, there is absolutely no logical reason at all - not a single one - that slavery should be mentioned on Louisville's main page.

It seems as if this matter has been settled, as 3 editors support a less prominent mention of slavery, and agree that Louisville's slave population was, by no means at all, remarkable. There's no way one can twist and bend the facts around that, when one can find dozens of counties as of 1860 with both larger absolute numbers and larger percentages of slaves than Louisville. This legacy should be reflected in the History of Louisville article, however, as we all would agree.

--Gator87 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh really just as you haven't addressed my post on the CD forum. At the time being I can't find the proper way to save the query information and with that said along with the concensus I'm going to sit quiet for the time being (at least until I get a little help) as I'am content with it being in the history article for now!

As far as twisting and bending facts and Louisville's slave population not being all that remarkable and it being that of a "typical border city" that point is quite lost with previous post which shows that Louisville's slave population is over twice that of any "typical border city" while ranking slightly behind the next 4 Southern cities, not to mention this is going by the later 1860 which as we all know Louisville had an even larger numerical slave population prior to that time. It's shown that Louisville ranked 5th overall in the South prior to this time. BTW if you're talking percentage-wise Louisville had a higher number of slaves per capita then New Orleans which is in the heart of the South! So as far as it being a "typical border city" in that perspective...Probably not! Louisvillian 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Interastates and rounts

i think it should be more addressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geek511 (talk • contribs) 21:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

firsts

I would like to remove the third paragraph of the intro... this just seems like boosterism. Every large city is home to various firsts... the fact that the lightbulb was shown here 125 years ago or that the Duponts lived here then is more of a hometown boast than something of the actual high encyclopedic importance suggested by it being mentioned in a top-level article's intro. The goal of the article is to inform (in a general way) about Louisville, not just to compile trivia that makes the city look good. Sorry if this sounds overly biting, my goal here is to just keep the article up to featured quality. --W.marsh 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt a similar pang when this material was introduced. However, I think every city article should have some content that covers what makes them unique. As long as the content is kept in encyclopedic language, I'm OK with it. But you're right that it doesn't necessarily belong in the lead. You're also VERY correct when you say that articles should not indulge in boosterism, or what I call "brochure-itis". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there's more than just the superficial language... putting this in the intro represents giving it undue weight. What if there were a similarly lengthy paragraph about bad things associated with Louisville, for example, right in the intro. I'm sure we could source it and make it neutral in tone... but if it represented 1/3 of the intro, that would be a problem. I still think the firsts need to be removed from the intro... probably they should be integrated into individual sections if appropriate. --W.marsh 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your suggestion. Have at it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so having three paragraphs about totally bogus population rankings (which only two people accepts) is fine, but how dare anyone put a small paragraph of major innovations occurring in the city. Angry Aspie 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about re: population rankings, but I think the issue here is whether this article comes across as a brochure or not. W.marsh is merely saying that these innovations should be integrated into related sections rather than being clumped together in the lead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great article

Thanks for the great info, I was so impressed I chose Louisville for my holiday this year. Tim Vickers 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic, Tim. I sincerely hope you enjoy your stay in our beautiful city. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)