Talk:Sand Mountain (Alabama)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Beefing up this Article.

It's about time the Sand Mountain article got some attention! There's been a good start on some good additions and information. I will try to add a section on early history and settlement. Where possible citations need to be needed. Eastcote (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, yankee who lives hundreds of miles away from Sand Mountain here where I live. As noted twice already, I am still working on a complete re-write of this article. I have already spent a few hours on it, adding valuable information, pictures, graphs, etc. I have a lot more to add, including citations for all the statements I've made - which you can rest assured are true, otherwise I would not have made them (around here, a man's word is still his bond). If your genuine sole interest is in seeing this article improved from the sad state it's been in for over two years now, then you'll learn to give things a few days before jumping all over them. Tweaking takes a little while, and I'm not able to devote wholly uninterrupted time to it. Here's a good idea for the future: when it's obvious that someone knowledgeable is donating their time to do a complete rewrite of an article you care about, don't start removing things and tagging things unless you see a few days go by with no further activity. Some of us actually eat, sleep, work, spend time with our wives, etc., and thus the stream of editing is not without interruptions. You had two years to re-write this article, and chose not to. Now it's my turn, so give me a few days before you start getting your panties all in a wad. Thank you. Pierce Phillips, Ider, Alabama. Nuberger13 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Talk about getting your panties in a wad. I don't think my tweaking (i.e., removing "tater", and rewriting the odd comment that Sand Mountain is a "gash"), should really cause that much offense. Let's see if we can start over. I'm from Section actually, and as I said, it's good to see someone start working on this article. Let's see if we can improve it together. Eastcote (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That kind of "let's all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya" crap doesn't work on me, (personal attack removed) hence I'm ignoring it. Elsways- I've added a whole heap of references to this article now - and, save for adding to the list of towns on top of Sand Mtn., am done with the rest of the article, so feel free to start messing it up. Nuberger13 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you seek help immediately. Eastcote (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Faith Edits and Vandalism

Please refrain from marking good faith edits as vandalism. The mention in the Sand Mountain article about the 1903 Jewish farming commune contains a reference. I am attempting to bring the article in line with what the reference actually says. Your reversion introduces a non-neutral point of view, e.g. when you write that they were "bent on socialism", or that the commune was dissolved due to "vastly" different religious and philosophical views between the Jewish community and the rest of the folks on Sand Mountain. You and I both may "know" that the people of Sand Mountain would have a big problem with Jewish settlers, but that's our particular point of view. The reference does not say that. The reference says, "Due in part to the conflicting religious and philosophical values of the community, but also because they ran out of food and money, the Sand Mountain commune dissolved in 1905." This can be interpreted to mean that there was internal religious and philosophical conflict within the Jewish community itself. Or it can be interpreted to mean the conflict was with the larger Sand Mountain community, i.e., their Christian neighbors. It's hard to tell from the reference. However, in assuming it was "vastly conflicting religious and philosophical values of Sand Mountain's population" you get away from a neutral point of view and interject your own point of view. My reversion is to bring the statement back in line with what the reference actually says. For clarification of Wikipedia's philosophy and policies, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Eastcote (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

references

It looks to me like there are not as many references as it appears at first glance, it seems the same refs are used repeatedly, and some of the refs are to other Wikipedia pages, unfortunately not considered a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Primitive Baptists

I have lived on Sand Mountain my entire life and the statement that Primitive Baptists make up the largest religious group in the area is completely false. You can drive anywhere on the mountain and Southern Baptist churches outnumber Primitive Baptist churches at least ten to one so I changed the article to read "Baptists" rather than "Primitive Baptists". I am Methodist so it hardly matters to me which Baptist group is largest but I wanted the article to be as accurate as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.252.12.70 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. That is my experience/observation also. Eastcote (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)