Talk:Muscle Shoals, Alabama

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

Ship Photo Caption

I'm not quite sure how the ship Muscle Shoals can be a Vanguard class missile tracker if she in fact was renamed to Vanguard to create the class name. Logically the Vanguard class didn't exist while this ship was named Muscle Shoals.--J Clear 12:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

   I dunno if that argument is now or ever was reflected in our content (on either the Dab page or the Ship-SIA page) but it's nonsense in any case. The relevant questions must be

1. Is the Vanguard still primarily known as the Muscle Shoals (which is highly probable if it performed so well in the field that the admirals said "that was a swell idea and we need more like it, but the name of that hick town sucks, so let's change it to something classier and more valorous-sounding").
2. Is the ship once known as the Muscle Shoals now among the (current or retired) Vanguard class missile trackers?
3. Regardless of its official name, is the first Vanguard-class missile tracker now better known as Vanguard or Muscle Shoals (and not to active duty sailors, but to those likely to seek its WP article)? -- E.g., perhaps bcz its most gallant or most influential action was in its early years, before anyone else had comparable missile-tracker ships. That would be unsurprising if most officers (of its own or competing navies) didn't appreciate what a good idea it was until it decided an engagement or saved a capital ship, so that the rest of the class's chance to shine has diminished now that its function is one that every serious navy needs and routinely has, as part modern naval-warfare doctrine (as perhaps was established primarily by the combat record of the Muscle Shoals).
   

--Jerzy•t 06:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the name?

Is it an archaic spelling of mussel? Grant | Talk 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be the case. David Spector (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(Section created to divide into two subsections a (former) single section, that appears to have had accidentally concatenated in it, two discussions that should logically have been in two independent top-level sections)

   That section title doesn't make easy sense, does it? Usually a title is just a noun phrase, and that one has three phrases, that include two infinitives and two uses of "that" as (IIRC) relative pronouns, each to create a dependent clause. It makes me tired, too, and represents too much concept to be willing to pack into even a sentence, let alone a title!
   (Well, anyway, i needed to create this section to divide into two subsections a (former) single section; the formerly single section appears to have suffered an indignity: it had, accidentally concatenated into it, two discussions that should logically have been in two independent top-level sections. And i don't have the brass to say "trust me, i've faithfully rewritten it", without bothering to bore you with the detail that'll let you trace how i reasoned it out, if you're one of the other two compulsive or paranoid editors who might want to follow the details.)
   OK, 60% of the time editors understand the talk pages, and thus start a new discussion topic in a new section; another 35%, someone else promptly retrofits a section heading. 4.9%, the discussion goes no further, or at least not far enuf for confusion. Here, using all-caps made it look at a glance a lot as if there were a heading, but it isn't a separate section bcz it doesn't have section markup, and this time we ended up with a section covering three topics that looked like a single discussion too impenetrable to bother with. The rest of what i added is a bit wordy, to make up for the chaos, but now most of the work that following the discussion demands is just skimming the added superstructure to see that it goes into details that don't affect what we should do about the accompanying article, and can be ignored.
--Jerzy•t 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is retarded.

There's no reason to list every last piece of music recorded within the city limits, for Chrissakes. Just give a link to the Shoals 500 or whatever. - 12 June 07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.225.43 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2007‎

I agree. Wikipedia is not for arbitrary lists like this.

--199.209.144.15 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

   (I have not informed myself about what the list looked like, so no opinion.)
--Jerzy•t 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

   The expression "This is retarded." in the section heading violates an important WP conduct guideline against uncivil discourse.
   (I add the following, beyond my sense that the guidelines precluded my ignoring that as i write: For the record, besides that being explicitly abusive, it's also bloody ignorant, and rude, to use even obsolete diagnostic terms as terms of abuse, and i urge colleagues to include those reasons as well, in their thinking about avoiding giving offense in our discussions.)
--Jerzy•t 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(Critiques in two areas, based on local and professional experience)

   I have retrofitted further sub-headings into this sub-section. My purpose is to produce two two-levels-below-top-level sub-sections, from the single contrib that User:Feedkillchain contributed, within a pre-existing top level section by another editor on a different discussion topic.   In the interest of, on one hand, letting our colleague Fkc's original organization of their contrib stay clear, and on the other hand, of shielding Fkc's intent from against confusions resulting from Fkc having -- with admirable resourcefulness -- reinvented structures similar to those provided by typical Wiki-markup, without using those markup facilities, i've taken the liberty of restructuring the two major subdivisions of their single contrib into two sections (and i shall am already inquiring about the ambiguity of the term "this section".
--Jerzy•t 14:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(Factual errors)

NEW ADDITION TO CONVERSATION BY A LOCAL:
I am not writing this to be inflammatory or reactionary, but this article is absolutely ridiculous and I feel I must also chip a little bit of my opinion in here. I am a record collector and know collectors from all over the world - and, yes, Muscle Shoals is highly esteemed the world over (particularly in Europe) for the recordings made there. However, I am also a writer, musician, and record producer FROM Muscle Shoals, and my first-hand experience leads me to have major grievances with this article. Almost everything from the sentence "It can be said that the same attraction that artists such as Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon and The Rolling Stones felt to the area remains intact today" to "Among the musical celebrities with homes in the area are George Strait, Tim McGraw and Faith Hill" is either A) biased opinion that cannot be substantiated as fact B) wildly exaggerated fact (the "classic" era famed by collectors peters out in the late 60s and is all but gone by the early 70s. 1980s Muscle Shoals recordings are almost "FAME"ed for their bad production, late-period records for star artists that nearly destroyed careers(Bob Dylan's Christian period, Cher's decline in the 70s, Mink Deville's seemingly conscious avoidance of relevance), and a general loss of touch with the mainstream of pop music while simultaneously falling out of favor with musicians, hipsters, collectors, and critics. C) completely fabricated (Faith Hill and others mentioned do not live here, although George Jones did at one point)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedkillchain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Fkc-unsig notation copied from a subsequent section due to my refactoring Fkc's contrib into more but smaller sub-sections. --Jerzy•t 14:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(Self-serving sources)

...ALSO

Very little of the content of this article is cited from a credible resource (if at all). Most of that which is cited comes from cites owned by the city of Muscle Shoals or owned by Fame studios itself. This is more of an advertisement than an unbiased article. The "WC Handy Festival" referred to in the uncited closing section is a relatively small event and the musicians referred to are mostly aging bar band dudes who play long sets of bad covers and never quite made careers of it. The stuff about Paul Simon and the Swampers is completely true, however. What the article doesn't quite express is that the government ran off Henry Ford and Rick Hall ran off Aretha Franklin and all the soul musicians. Also not explaines is how W.C. Handy, Hellen Keller (not even mentioned in this article as a local of Tuscumbia, part of the Shoals Quad Cities referred to several times), and Drive-By Truckers all struggled here to much indifference and discrimination and did not receive recognition until after they had fled the Shoals area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedkillchain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Fkc-unsig notation copied from a subsequent section due to my refactoring Fkc's contrib into more but smaller sub-sections. --Jerzy•t 14:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(Comment criticizing ambiguously specified section)

• I completely agree. This section is pathetic and completely biased. The language is almost absurd. The entire section should be re-written. Wikipediarules2221 05:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  •    I've made an inquiry on WPrul's talk page as to whether the "entire section" in question is the article section, or possibly one of two discussion subsections.
    --Jerzy•t 13:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    

Fair use rationale for Image:Muscle Shoals sign.jpg

Image:Muscle Shoals sign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Geography Section

EDIT: The Geography section only contains two sentences of information, both of which are already covered elsewhere in the article. After reading more on the Wiki guidelines for city pages, I see the geography section is warranted, but very insufficient. I'd like to get input as to what information should go into it, such as any facts that there may be that are lesser known (must be verifiable) or a good source in general for the section. Caroofikus (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

History section copyright violation

I have removed the entire History section because it was a blatant, nearly verbatim, copying of the copyrighted material from The History of the City of Muscle Shoals at the City of Muscle Shoals website. Although the material was referenced to that page, the copying of this material goes well beyond fair use.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed more content

I have removed a significant amount of material of the history section because it does not meet out standards. Material must be referenced by reliable sources and must adhere to a neutral point of view. Language used must not be "fluffy"; Wikipedia is not for a glowing tourist brochure. Keegan (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Leon Russell is a rock musician

The article lists Leon Russell as a jazz musician. He is a rock musician. 50.164.139.121 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

sidewalks?

Why does this article make such a big deal about the town having sidewalks? Why are sidewalks and their benefits explained as if no other town had sidewalks? Are sidewalks rare in Alabama? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.234.101 (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Were native people "anti-american"?

The article states, "After the Revolution, Cherokee attitudes toward the new U.S. republic were divided, as settlers increasingly encroached on their territory. An anti-American faction..."

This doesn't seem to make sense, as Native Americans were here first, and for a very long time (perhaps beginning 15,000 to 30,000 years ago), and therefore must be considered Americans even more so than the European colonists and their new independent country. The Native Americans were perhaps opposed to the taking of their land or destruction of their culture, but that at most makes them people who were opposed to the United States, not anti-Americans. David Spector (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ᏓᎫᎾᏱ

My money's on "ᏓᎫᎾᏱ" being translated as the Cherokee word for "vandalism." Look it up. "ᏓᎫᎾᏱ" basically only appears in one place on the whole wide Internet: this Wikipedia article. When nobody cites something after it's been tagged long enough, that's a clue it should be removed. I don't have time to do it, but just sayin.

Short description

Hi Julietdeltalima, I removed the word Alabama from the short description because it's already contained within the article title, so it seems redundant to include it in the s/d, when that is supposed to be as brief as possible. Why do you think it should remain as it is? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)