Talk:Mississippi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Allstarecho (talk · contribs) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Contents |
[edit] Famous Mississippians
Aside from having a top selling book, Kevin Sessums is currently an editor at Allure magazine after spending fourteen years at Vanity Fair magazine in that same capacity. Before joining Vanity Fair, he was executive editor for Andy Warhol’s Interview magazine. His work has also appeared in Elle, Travel + Leisure, Playboy, POZ, Out, and Show People magazines. He is quite notable and his inclusion provides balance. He's been nominated for awards, just because he didn't win them doesn't mean he isn't notable. Just because he had one book, doesn't mean he isn't notable. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Granted you may like this author, so have him listed in the other people from Mississippi. There are many other authors that could be listed here. That is why there is a other people from Mississippi page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are removing someone that has been on this page for months. You can't do that just because you disagree with his degree of notability. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because no one has removed him in months shouldn't mean that he should stay listed as a famous author. Ask any librarian if Kevin Sessums should be listed with Faulkner or Grisham. That is what the List of other people from Mississippi is for. What other editors can review this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what "any librarian" would say or think, there is a reason the list is limited. And now you go and add many more to the list? The in-article notice says to add new entries to List of people from Mississippi. This article is big and this section was designed like it is to keep the size down. Please adhere to the notice. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is also a reason why this is Wikipedia: anyone can edit, and no one has ownership of an article to say "that name should never be removed". I am the one who added the "not intended to be a complete list" comment you are mentioning. It was added back when I edited both this and the list articles and of course was done to keep the list from getting too long because the list was a mess when I first saw it, but it was not intended to put a stranglehold on others wishing to say one name is more important than another in the list. Nothing about WP says that names in a list cannot or should never be removed. Personally, I like the [recent edit] made on the article in this matter. It's a small highlight list, more thna enough names, and if people want ot see more names, that's that the list article is for. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't need a lecture on WP:OWN as I am fully aware of it. But as someone who has devoted a lot of time to cleaning up this article, to pare it down and such, I'd expect at least discussion on whatever issue that arises, rather than ignoring such notices and then even after being asked about it, continuing to make the list bigger all the while telling me to add Kevin Sessums to List of people from Mississippi. That having been said, I asked for a neutral outsider to have a look at the issue and when he did, he made the current change which you say you like. I believe the change is fair as well. Issue solved. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Golbez for stepping in and resolving the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't need a lecture on WP:OWN as I am fully aware of it. But as someone who has devoted a lot of time to cleaning up this article, to pare it down and such, I'd expect at least discussion on whatever issue that arises, rather than ignoring such notices and then even after being asked about it, continuing to make the list bigger all the while telling me to add Kevin Sessums to List of people from Mississippi. That having been said, I asked for a neutral outsider to have a look at the issue and when he did, he made the current change which you say you like. I believe the change is fair as well. Issue solved. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is also a reason why this is Wikipedia: anyone can edit, and no one has ownership of an article to say "that name should never be removed". I am the one who added the "not intended to be a complete list" comment you are mentioning. It was added back when I edited both this and the list articles and of course was done to keep the list from getting too long because the list was a mess when I first saw it, but it was not intended to put a stranglehold on others wishing to say one name is more important than another in the list. Nothing about WP says that names in a list cannot or should never be removed. Personally, I like the [recent edit] made on the article in this matter. It's a small highlight list, more thna enough names, and if people want ot see more names, that's that the list article is for. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what "any librarian" would say or think, there is a reason the list is limited. And now you go and add many more to the list? The in-article notice says to add new entries to List of people from Mississippi. This article is big and this section was designed like it is to keep the size down. Please adhere to the notice. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because no one has removed him in months shouldn't mean that he should stay listed as a famous author. Ask any librarian if Kevin Sessums should be listed with Faulkner or Grisham. That is what the List of other people from Mississippi is for. What other editors can review this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.164.143 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are removing someone that has been on this page for months. You can't do that just because you disagree with his degree of notability. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
my concern is that these were very powerful indians. Mississippi also has The King of Rock and Roll Elvis Presely and the one of a kind Oprah Winfrey
--76.171.230.103 (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)larisssa domikob
[edit] Disambig?
I was a bit surprised that Mississippi the state came up here, not Mississippi River. Shouldn't this be at least a disambiguation page (which is now located at Mississippi (disambiguation))? WP:DAB states: "When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed. When the title usually means one thing but also has other meanings, add disambiguation links to the primary topic's article." At least for me, the River is certainly more notable than the state. I do not see the name to usually apply to the state, but at best see both uses as equally frequent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- While you're at it, change the Washington link to disambiguate to George Washington, and the Kansas link go to the the Kansas river. This is ridiculous. I could see how a person who lives next to the river in another state could think something idiotic like "The river is far more notable than a piece of land with a mere 3 million or so irrelevant souls in it", but generally, whenever I'm looking for the Mississippi river, I type in "Mississippi river", not "Mississippi". 74.251.26.43 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you to the person who replied to the comment made by Schulz. As a Mississippian, I was taken aback by the statement: "At least for me, the River is certainly more notable than the state." Mississippi takes a lot of heat at times, and perhaps is not always positively portrayed or recognized; and maybe we are not as well-known to the rest of the world (Germany?) as say New York or California, but we are more notable than a river. As the person above mentioned, one would look for Mississippi River or THE Mississippi when attempting to view information about the river. Perhaps we need more users that are actually from Mississippi editing this article. Then again, we probably do not have computers or know how to type, so maybe the river is more notable. Jocelyn48 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
Near the end of the section, I've added contemporary numbers about Federal subsidies to the Delta and who they benefit, lack of rural development, out-migration, etc. with source.--Parkwells (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Major Cities
Picayune is probably #9 now... Msjayhawk (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good thing we don't go on "probably" when writing an encyclopedia. If it can't be proven by a verifiable source, it can't be included. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charitable contributions
The statement that Mississippians consistently rank as one of the highest per capita in charitable contributions has absolutley nothing to do with the Mississippi economy and should be deleted. I've already gone and deleted it but this heavily flawed Wiki system and corrupt administrators says that its "vandilism" and says I have to have a discussion about it before I can delete it. Which in itself is a waste of time because clearly the only response I'm going to get here is that it should stay on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.47.38 (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome to "consensus". Additionally, charitable contributions are related to the Mississippi economy.. one of the poorest states, if not the poorest, gives more of its money to charity than any other state. It speaks volumes to economics and what Mississippians are doing with their money. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
