|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Abstain, but I'll start an area to discuss this. NE2 said in his editing comment on November 1, "The intro is pretty POV, listing only good things." It is true that it lists only good things, but on the other hand, I couldn't find a statement that isn't factual. Can anyone find contradicting statements in reliable sources? -- Ken g6 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote some of the material marked POV, and I live in Louisville, so I won't make any formal recommendation. Informally, however, I will say this: if you are searching the web for anything bad that has been written about Louisville, good luck with that! I have tried, and failed. Some people in Boulder put down Louisville as a place for families raising children, others will tell you it's rather boring, and that is about it for "negative" comments. Here are links to all of the unsolicited posts at city-data.com on Louisville:
- For comparison, I believe that the following is a typical sentiment expressed by people who actually live in Louisville: "As far as my happiness index, it's gotta be near 100. I moved here over 20 years ago, but I remember that toward the end of my second year, I realized I was not going back."
- —Aetheling (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - as a former resident of Louisville I would have to contend that the intro is strongly POV. I would recommend moving the comments to another section of the article and rewriting them. The links and confirmation of the magazines as it being a good place to live can be mentioned but should never be stated flat out (as it was) as fact. I would not have it in the intro, instead the intro should contain relevant information connected with the statistics of the town. The second paragraph was a good example of this.
The statement that proceeds as follows : "and has evolved into one of the best places to live and raise a family in the entire United States, as recognized repeatedly in surveys by Money magazine and in the book Best Places to Raise Your Family."
I would write along the lines of "Louisville has been recognized by numerous publications as one of the best places to live and raise a family in the United States." This keeps the information relevant but not implying fact. The word 'entire' in of itself confirms the pushing of the data as fact. In this case it is not necessary as it is quite obviously implied.
Finally - good and bad cannot ever be fact. It can be strongly agreed upon but cannot be fact. Therefore magazines and articles saying the environment of Louisville is good does not make it a fact. Worth mentioning certainly. The data in paragraph two is fact. It can imply the second conclusion of Louisville being a great place to live. That is enough.
- I adopted the language that you recommended, and tried to summarize the (brief) history of Louisville at the same time. If you would like to go further with the editing, go right ahead. —Aetheling (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a POV issue, but the intro looks messy with the bulleted list in there; some of the details should be moved down. As for "negative criticism", which doesn't need to be in the intro if there's not much, is there any data on stuff like commute times? --NE2 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A few sources that might be useful, not necessarily for "criticism" but just general information, or they might be too minor to mention at all:
-  (new urbanism in Louisville)
-  (developer sued the city and citizens after they rejected a project)
If anyone has access to "Best Places to Raise Your Family", does it have anything negative about Louisville? --NE2 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)