Talk:Greenhaven, Georgia

Definition of "Overwhelmingly"

Google defines "overwhelmingly" as:[1]

o·ver·whelm·ing·ly

ˈˌōvərˈ(h)welmiNGlē/ adverb to a very great degree or with a great majority.

"the country voted overwhelmingly for independence"

Merriam-Webster online defines it as:[2]

1 a : to an overwhelming extent; an overwhelmingly powerful army

b : extremely; overwhelmingly mediocre

2 : mostly by far; the workers were overwhelmingly female

Oxforddictionaries.com defines it as:[3]

ADVERB

To a very great degree or with a great majority.

‘the country voted overwhelmingly for independence’

as submodifier ‘the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive’

By any reasonable measure using these common definitions a majority of 87% is "overwhelming", even without the context of the percentage of communities in the United States that would register such a proportion of African Americans out of its total population. There is no stigma attached to the number, nor the adverb.

Nowhere is it indicated the term "overwhelmingly" when used to describe a proportion of seven-eighths, whether of a voting return, proportion of females in a workplace, or indeed "great majority", is "unencyclopedic".

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"Neighbors against Greenhaven"

The material on "Neighbors against Greenhaven" that has recently been added seems relevant, but was way over-represented relative to the size and focus of the rest of the article (see WP:UNDUE). I suggest condensing this into one paragraph using two or three references, rather than doubling article size with just this angle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Why was Neighbors Against Greenhaven content removed. This is an article on the proposed city. There is opposition and that should be noted. All citations were from third parties TravelinFool 20:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

See immediately above, perhaps, before wading in with reverts? This should be a sub-topic, not the focus of the article; it certainly does not merit detailed listings of grievance bullet points. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So if reduced to one paragraph and add external link all is well? TravelinFool 04:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

My assessment would be that that would constitute a reasonable amount of text, yes. Please avoid external links where possible; the important bits are in-line references, which ideally would provide all the links required (since everything you add to the article should be a summary of material found at these references). If you have to add an actual direct external link, that should go as a bullet into the "external links" section that is already there (last thing on page). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There are some legislation updates since this original article was written that were removed that appeared neutral and are the focus of the article as this is an ongoing story as legislation was introduced last year for the upcoming session that starts 14 January 2019. This portion was removed as well and would like to restore with neutrality. TravelinFool 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

reducing to to nearly one sentence for Neighbors Against Greenhaven. initially told one paragraph. TravelinFool 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TravelinFool 05:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC) The Linkedin source was inadvertently left in on last edit and has been removed with link to website added back as last revert.

(talk why do you keep removing approved content TravelinFool 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

Permission for External Links for opposition groups Comment Reply Suggestion

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SounderBruce has continually removed an external link from Greenhaven,ga to the opposition group Neighbors Against Greenhaven that User:Elmidae had allowed. Greenhaven, ga is proposed legislation that comes up every year in the House of Representatives and Greenhaven is a proposed city in southern DeKalb County, Georgia, outside Atlanta. Imagine Greenhaven formerly Yes to Greenhaven is the entity that is pushing for approval. There is an external link to their site. Neighbors Against Greenhaven, Citizens Against Cityhood in Dekalb and Concerned Citizens in Opposition to Greenhaven are three opposition groups. This can be verified in one or more of the article's sources. Concerned Citizens in Opposition to Greenhaven should be allowed to be included as an opposition group, but is not yet mentioned.

If the pro group is allowed an external link then the opposing groups should be allowed external links as well. TravelinFool 20:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Permission to add External links to all three of the opposition groups: https://neighborsagainstgreenhaven.com/ http://cciotg.org/main/ https://ccegdekalb.blogspot.com/ TravelinFool 20:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Permission to add Concerned Citizens in Opposition to Greenhaven as an opposition group.

TravelinFool 20:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@TravelinFool: These sites wouldn't be useful for information on the proposed city, which is the subject of the article. If the subject were the dispute itself, then yes these would be permissible, but as it stands, the article is about the proposed city itself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So what you’re saying is that it is ok for the promovement to have a link and the opposition side to not have a link. It would seem that to have an unbiased view you would have both or neither TravelinFool 12:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Using information from the article to show why the external links should be included. Let's discuss: 1. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/02/fear-of-another-black-city/554234/ Concerned Citizens for Cityhood of South DeKalb (now Imagine Greenhaven) Neighbors Against Greenhaven Citizens Against Cityhood in DeKalb 2. https://www.wabe.org/another-new-cityhood-push-dekalb-county/ No mention of any group 3. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-cities-could-further-split-atlanta-region/zyP5X5R3PyvQa5BZ8SOsNO/?mode=new No mention of any group 7. https://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb-bill-creating-city-greenhaven-moves-forward-house/imN8tupyKKQoqVvx9Z1ZZO/ Concerned Citizens in Opposition to Greenhaven 10. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/greenhaven-cityhood-proposal-dies-committee/4EDyF0cK1WaFtfVzgfeKoM/ Opponents 12. https://decaturish.com/2018/02/proposed-city-of-greenhaven-approved-by-house-committee-improving-its-chances/ Neighbors Against Greenhaven Citizens Against Cityhood in DeKalb 13. https://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb-bills-abolish-ceo-and-create-greenhaven-city-die-house/KgPbi4cgiRgXFG00zhaiEK/ Opponents 14. https://web.archive.org/web/20140913094510/http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/23/a-census-speeds-atlanta-toward-racially-neutral-ground/ This article doesn’t mention Greenhaven on demographics 15. https://www.wabe.org/dekalb-residents-ready-fight-new-cities/ Ed Williams organizer for Citizens Against Greenhaven TravelinFool 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: As your suggested I posted here. This was done on 27 January 2019 (UTC) and there has been no response. These sites wouldn't be useful for information on the proposed city, which is the subject of the article. TravelinFool 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC) @Jasper Deng: you mentioned 'These sites wouldn't be useful for information on the proposed city, which is the subject of the article.' However, if the group appears in all of the links provided by FloridaArmy. SounderBruce has been editing this article as if he owned it and guarding it as if he is being paid to do so. To reluctantly add opposition and add a link to the pro side without a link to the opposition goes against everything I thought Wikipedia was about in being fair and balanced. TravelinFool 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Edited to make sure Neighbors Against Greenhaven portion has a neutral point of view. Comment WikiProject assessment Copyedit (minor)

Sounderbruce last edit was incorrect in that he made a quote that wasn't attributed to either Neighbors Against Greenhaven or Concerned Citizens in Opposition of Greenhaven. He is adept at wikipedia and I'm a newbie. If you look throughout this thread he has used bully tactics to try to prevent NAG from being listed on here. He refused to allow the opposition external link, but placed the external link of the pro movement group. I thought wiki was egalitarian and was neutral. There is nothing about this where it is fair. the opposition which is listed wasn't allowed to.

If you look at all this person has done it's been through great effort to do to first keep off the opposition, now trying to discredit them. In fact now the Pro Greenhaven is using this misquote about NAG and CCIOG in opposition due to it being a majority black city is incorrect. In fact, the greenhaven, ga is taking the current footprint which is already majority black. NAG is multi racial and CCIOG was developed from a majority black neighborhood. Greenhaven NOw is using wiki to try to discredit the opposition. At this point not sure what are the procedures, but I know for a fact this isn't how I thought wiki operated. Greenhaven Now using wiki to discredit opposition TravelinFool 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

This is just a quick glance look at nearly 2 am Eastern, but you have to keep this in a neutral point of view and the Concerned Citizens Group doesn't have any notability unless its in the national or Georgia headlines. Mitch32^{(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)} 06:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)