Talk:North Florida

(Re)creation

This article (which was converted from a deleted redirect to a disambiguation page to a stub) is going to require a lot of work. For instance, the claim that "With the exception of urban enclaves, it is notably significantly more rural and politically conservative than the rest of the state..." So it's rural, with the exception of the places that aren't rural? I'm also skeptical of the usefulness of the maps, at least in the ways they are currently being used. The one is supposed to reiterate how rural North Florida is, but it shows that counties with low population densities occur throughout the state. I can't determine the methodology behind the coloring of the other map. At any rate, this article, like any, will improved through the employment of reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was this? It read like a combination of a diary entry and a no-solutions-offered criticism of the contributions I've made. Perhaps all of that could have been better phrased in the form of questions (provided, of course, you're genuinely interested in the thinking and methodology behind the contributions I made). If you're the sort who is going to abuse his adminship in order to play retribution and frustration games because he's upset that his original article was challenged and deleted (above his protestations, no less), just let me know now, so I can duck out and avoid the hassle. But if, instead, your sole genuine interest is in harnessing and taking advantage of what I have to offer, then - like I said - next time ask "why" questions and allow for explanations, rather than skipping right past that and writing a blog-style entry of "well, I'm going to have to clean this crap up". That said -- you make a good point about the "it's rural except for the places that aren't rural" statement. My intent was to convey that - on the whole - North Florida is more rural than the rest of the state...but without saying it in such a way that someone might come along and say "well what about Tallahassee, Pensacola, Jacksonville, etc. ?") - hence I used the term "urban enclave". In regard to the first map ("The one is supposed to reiterate how rural North Florida is, but it shows that counties with low population densities occur throughout the state") - that's explained in the caption. Note that the map shows density not by county, but rather by census tract. Note that, for all intents and purposes, the only low-population-density census tracts NOT located in north Florida are the ones the developers cannot build on. It would be misleading to call an area rural, if it's uninhabited because of federal or Indian mandate. Would you call the Everglades rural? I wouldn't - that would be misleading to someone who would interpret 'rural' to mean "undiscovered" or "small town America". They fall more under the "not applicable" category. The point of the map, and the statement, is to denote that due to cultural and historic reasons, north Florida is [voluntarily] significantly more rural than the rest of the state. In regard to the second map ("I can't determine the methodology behind the coloring of the other map. At any rate, this article, like any, will improved through the employment of reliable sources.") - (a) you would know what the methodology was if you'd taken the time to look at the image's page [and, again, asking in the absence of knowing is preferred to the insulting inference that none was used], and (b) I consider the US Census Bureau, the State of Florida, and the New York Times to meet Wikipedia's "reliable sources" criteria - so the veiled blog insult of "At any rate, this article will improved through the employment of reliable sources" falls on deaf ears here. Nuberger13 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My friend, you need to not take criticism of article content personally, assume good faith, and refrain from making personal comments. My points of criticism are valid, and not addressed to the contributor personally. The fact is, none of the claims here are cited to reliable sources, and thus they can't be verified. Some of the material looks like it's original research, while some of it is erroneous. I'm thinking specifically of the voting record claims. It's true that the highest concentration of Florida's red votes come what we are calling "North Florida", but that's very different from saying North Florida "votes solidly conservative in elections". This map shows that most counties voted similarly to those in other parts of the state in the 2008 presidential election, with the populous Duval and Alachua counties leaning significantly towards Obama. And that's just one election. At any rate correcting this shouldn't be hard, as you clearly have access to some reliable sources.

I remain skeptical of the maps. I feel that the population map is being used to demonstrate something the map can't actually demonstrate - namely, it requires a long caption with qualifications to get the desired reading. The other map doesn't give its source, which is problematic. But like I said, I am confident that all this can be sorted out.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has an aditional problem with its definition. I looked for some sources defining the boundaries and came up with nothing particularly useful in terms of this article. The only scholarly publications containing a definition of the term that I could find were archaeological texts (such as this one). These define North Florida as the land between approximately the Aucilla River in the west, the Santa Fe River in the south, and a mutable boundary to the east not stretching to the Saint Johns River (which is in the St. Johns region or East Florida). This is hardly useful to us, but it goes to show how unstandardized the concept of "North Florida" apparently is. I suppose that the presence of the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, the North Florida Community College in Madison, and the North Florida Regional Medical Center in Gainesville could be used to argue that the region extends at least to those areas in less specialized parlance, but this assumption is a far cry from a published, reliable source. This shadiness seems to be a problem with many of the articles on the supposed regions of Florida.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've already explained where you can find the information that was used to create the shaded map of North Florida. I'm not addressing this further until you've taken the time to examine it. (2) Your criticism of my map is that it needs a caption? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're bright enough to see how ridiculous that statement was ("I feel that the population map is being used to demonstrate something the map can't actually demonstrate - namely, it requires a long caption with qualifications to get the desired reading") - what do you think captions are FOR? If all images were totally self-explanatory, the word "caption" wouldn't exist in the English language, because there'd be no need for such a thing. The fact that a map is improved by a caption is not a valid criticism of the map. (3) I maintain that you're being gamey. Nuberger13 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked you to check the incivility. Your map appears to be your own original research, perhaps synthesized from the sources you alluded to vaguely. The other map doesn't actually reveal what it is being used to reveal (that North Florida is more rural than other parts of the state - all it shows is that population density is lower in some areas of the state, north and south.) The article itself is full of what appears to be original research and errors. These issues will be resolved by citing reliable sources, as the verifiability policy indicates, rather than defensive and strident replies on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The population density map reveals exactly what it is being used to reveal, a fact you'd know if you'd read the caption I took the time to write (again: some images need captions, hence we invented them). I already explained why your statement is misleading, and I'm getting sick of giving you the gift of my time and energy, only for you to be so rude as to not bother reading and internalizing it - I'm not going to answer the same questions multiple times any more. Nuberger13 (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, verifiability and no original research are core Wikipedia policies. Your caption interprets the image in a way that is not clear from the image itself: thus it violates the no original research policy (specifically this line: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.") Until material is cited to reliable sources, the article is not in an acceptable state.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

New material

It's disappointing that the material added in July and August[1] remains unsourced four months later. The version that existed previously here was meticulously sourced and that, remains the only material with any sources at all. The new material is largely just lists of things that exist in North Florida. The fact that other articles contain similarly unsourced sections is no reason to repeat the error; in fact, if there are no sources for the material it's a violation of WP:NOR.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break! Some of us have lives. Nothing on this page is inaccurate, and I'd argue much of what you are upset about is data that is almost self-explanatory and requires no citation. Am I supposed to cite that I-95 runs through North Florida? I understand your argument, any page could use updating and better citations. If you have a problem with it revert it. Now I'm halfway convinced you vandalized it out of spit the other day. If you have a problem with this page you have a problem with much of the region pages that exist on wiki.Mathew105601 (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, I resent the implication that I vandalized this article. Assume good faith. Second, expecting someone to cite material they add in accordance to the policy is totally reasonable, especially as it's been four months and you've continued to edit. Citations show that the information is not only true, but relevant. So yes, if no sources on North Florida include all this info it shouldn't be here; there's not much point in lists of things that happen to exist in a particular area. And yes, most articles on regions are very poorly written as well. I didn't revert this because I know you put a lot of work into it and hoped you'd continue to get it up to snuff.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to accuse you of vandalism. I know you work here under good faith. I hope you think I do too. If you haven't noticed the pattern of my previous post on other pages, I tend to obsess on an idea for a bit, then I back of and let it simmer. I'm not trying create bad content. You should see my word.doc folder of edits never brought to fruition. It's an open ended process for me. I'm kind of waiting for my next wave of North Florida to hit me. It's cycle is coming. If you need to revert the page to an earlier date, go for it. I can always pull up the history and build on whats here now to create better finished product later. Seriously no offense will be taken. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's cool. I know your edits are intended in good faith and appreciate all the hard work you've put into these articles. And I'm okay with leaving it as is for a while so you can let it "simmer" before getting back to it, though ultimately I'd like to get it to a WP:GA standard, and that will need sources. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)