Talk:Florida

Archives
Archive 1(2005-June 2007) Archive 2 (July-Dec 2007)

Moving this article forward in 2008

For those of you who revert vandalism on this page, note that it is currently indefinitely semi-protected. After going through 10 separate semi-protection cycles last year (each time, removal of semi-protection resulted in a spike in IP vandalism), I requested long-term semi-protection at Requests for Page Protection. With IP vandalism no longer a problem, I'd like to work together to improve this article.

The weather section is an area that could be improved. Right now, there are a lot of cities on that list, using data from a commercial source of unknown reliability. In a discussion in July, Donald Albury made the sensible suggestion of using only the data from the cities in which the National Weather Service has regional offices—Jacksonville, Key West, Melbourne, Miami, Tallahassee, and Tampa—and add data for Pensacola with information from the Mobile office. The only problem is that the NWS has, in typical government fashion, fixed the system until it is broken, and several of the offices no longer have the data available in a usable form, and a couple of the offices state that the data they have is unofficial, and refer users to the National Climate Data Center, which does not have the rather elementary data we need in a usable format, and moreover, is not a free resource (in other words, there is a charge to retrieve some data). My suggestion would be to use the data available at the Southeast Regional Climate Center, which is linked from several of the NWS pages and is a project of the NCDC, located at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The site has data for over 100 different sites in the state of Florida, in a format that is easy to use and very similar to the table we currently have. While data is available for all of the cities we currently have on the chart (and more), I'd like to propose pruning the table down to the seven cities proposed by Mr. Albury. If there are no objections, I'll do that this weekend. Horologium (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida History

There seems to be an intention on the part of the historical sources here to categorically exclude the Seminole/Seminole Wars from the version of Florida history depicted here in Wikipedia. This may be due to embarrassment or lingering resentment over the spoils of "America's first Vietnam". However being one eighth Seminole Indian and ninth generation Florida Native, also having been brought up since elementary school to appreciate this vivid aspect of Florida history, I am forced to say I am incensed at these efforts to omit the Native contribution to the history of this state. No history of Florida is complete without atleast a paragraph in the article illustrating this colorful tradition, as opposed to some "reference or footnote" referring you to another article if you wish to read about it, which about all is listed currently.Rahiim03 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I hadn't realized that there is absolutely no mention of the Seminoles in the main history article, which needs to be corrected. Horologium (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to your added comments, let's have a little assumption of good faith here. I really resent your implication that the editors of this article have acted in a racist or petty fashion. That's insulting and totally inappropriate. Horologium (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again but "racism" or "pettiness" was never alleged by me (not sure who injected these words). I only offered "resentment" or "embarrassment" as the possible cause of the omissions. Of course this was just an opinion. And with all due respect, and In any case, would love to see a more well-rounded article. Thanks. Rahiim03 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Seminole Wars and Second Seminole War are long articles (too long, actually) and can be linked from the state history article. Since I've done a lot of work on those articles, I hope they are NPOV, but I would welcome all comments on them. In fact, I would like to work on getting one or both up to Featured Article status. -- Donald Albury 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometime tonight, I am planning to pull some of the leads out of those two articles (or the main History of Florida, which I haven't checked yet) and insert them into the history section. The two wars fit in nicely in the section between the Adams-Onís Treaty and statehood, and won't require any major surgery to add. Horologium (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Seminole War will fit there. The First Seminole War (while Florida was still Spanish) and the Third Seminole War (1855 - 1858) are covered by sections in the Seminole Wars article (Seminole Wars#First Seminole War and Seminole Wars#Third Seminole War). History of Florida does mention the First and Second Seminole Wars, but not the Third. -- Donald Albury 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I had totally spaced the third war, and I thought the first one was after the U.S. had acquired Florida from the Spanish. I obviously wasn't paying close attention... (wry grin). Let me see what I can do. Horologium (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added in the First and Second Wars, but adding in the third war is going to require a bit more than cut-and-paste to provide context. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry

Does anyone else think that Jewish ancestry should be reported in the Demographics section? The figure is 4% (found in the figure for religion). As of now these numbers are included as German, Polish, and American but should be separate as Jewish for various reasons such as lack of identification and family ancestry. In fact, many "German Jews" are descendants of those from the Pale of Settlement, which was not actually associated with Germany. There is also a significant Israeli population which is not counted and is surely Jewish. Also, Hebrew is commonly spoken and does not show up in the article. Surely this information needs to be revisited soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.233.209 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't quite understand the problem. Demographics are self-reporting. That is, people identify themselves as Polish or whatever ancestry. People of Jewish ancestry tend to have a strong identity towards being Jewish and aren't not generally known to "under-report" themselves as "German" or "Polish" by mistake. These figures were taken from the 2000 government census and are not really subject to being "recast" differently. If people report themselves as "Aleuts," there can be no "reconstruction" as anything BUT Aleuts. They can't be "Methodists." That is a different census or a different part of the census. Israel is a tiny country. The number of Israelis living outside of Israel has to be infinitesimal. While these expats speak Hebrew/Israeli, they may also be sufficiently fluent in English. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An intersection of ancestry by ethnicity and religion is not something that is easily tracked, and is not really relevant. Further, "Jewish" is not an ethnic category used by the Census Bureau. The ancestry breakdown from the Florida fact sheet from the Census Bureau does not separately break out "Israeli", which indicates that the Israeli population in Florida is included in the "other" listing, and is too small to list alone. ("Israeli" is a Census ancestry category, code 419; a list of the codes is here. "Jewish" is not on the list, nor Ashkenazi nor Sephardic.)

As to languages, the only detailed data I can find is the data cited, from the Modern Language Association, which tracks the languages spoken in homes (i.e., primary languages). Hebrew is 17th on that list in Florida, used as a primary language by 0.09% of Floridians. data results for 2005. While it is undoubtedly spoken by a larger percentage as a second or third language, it is not widely spoken as a primary language.

Horologium (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the Jewish people had a significant impact on Florida that they should be included in this page.Floridapeaches (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Size of state

Citing the book, "The New History of Florida", copyrighted 1996, Published by the University of Florida Press (Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data/edited by Michael Gannon) pp. 428, 1st paragraph: "Florida is Geographically the largest state east of the Mississippi--recent calculations boosted the Sunshine State over its rival, Georgia. Florida boasts 65,758 square miles of land mass and 3,800 miles of tidal shoreline."Rahiim03 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahiim03 (talk • contribs)

You have a reliable source, but there are plenty of other sources that say otherwise, including this from the U.S. Geographical Service, which makes Florida the fifth largest state east of the Mississippi. You would have to make a balanced statement, "on the one hand ... on the other hand", and it certainly would not belong in the lead. -- Donald Albury 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here, I think, is probably one of definitions. Florida does have the greatest total area of any state east of the Mississippi, but it has only the fifth greatest area of land among that same group of states. Basically, Florida has a whole lot of surface water. The U.S. Census Bureau's summary of such information is useful. Tim Ross (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I'm new to this wiki article, and was wondering if links to certain specific topics should be added, or if the decision has been made to omit them to avoid showing just a page of links (lol). Specifically, significant fauna wikipedia articles such as the Florida_Scrub-jay, the Manatee, the Florida_panther, Sea_turtle, etc.

Additionally, should there be separate links to John_F._Kennedy_Space_Center and Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station for the Economics section (rather than the {forgive me, but-} inaptly named "Merritt Island launch sites" article, which is not related to the economy but simply lists the launch pad locations - NONE of which are on Merritt Island, lol.) Tkech (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fauna section is next on my list of sections to get fixed, and is going to get extensively reworked, similar to what I did with Environment of Florida, although on a smaller scale; I'm also going to add a flora section. The space program is all one component of the state's economy, and the link to a single article is appropriate, especially since the linked article clearly describes the two separate bases. It might be worth proposing a name change for the List of Merritt Island launch sites article if none of the sites are on Merritt Island. I'm not terribly familiar with the area, but there are a couple of other bases in Brevard County (Patrick AFB, for one) involved with the space program; perhaps "List of Space Program sites in Brevard County, Florida" or something similar. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there were ever any launches from Patrick. It is pretty narrow, without much empty space. The connection is more historical; I think that the Cape facilities were once an annex to Patrick (50 years or more ago). I also remember (I hope correctly) that some of the older launch pads were on the barrier island that forms the Cape itself, but most of those were decommissioned many years ago. -- Donald Albury 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know that there weren't any launches from Patrick, which is why I suggested a name that didn't include "launch sites", but IIRC there were support activities at Patrick that related to the space program. Horologium (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there were. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources at hand. :( -- Donald Albury 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There actually was one launch from Patrick_Air_Force_Base - they launched one rail-launched missile (minuteman? matador?) from the base across A1A towards the ocean. Never before, never again. Today Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station is considered a part of PAFB. All of the active and inactive launch sites (listed in List of Merritt Island launch sites) are on the barrier island - evidently I am mistaken and it's called Merritt Island, tho it makes no sense to me. The 45th_Space_Wing is based at Patrick AFB http://www.patrick.af.mil and is responsible for the safety of the public during all launch activities, manned and unmanned. Now that I'm babbling all this, I see most of it probably belongs under Brevard County rather than in the Florida article due to the detail level. However, I am rather insistent that the TWO names best recognised by the public, John_F._Kennedy_Space_Center (for manned shuttle launches) and Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station (for all unmanned launches and many historical manned launches) both be listed, rather than the List of Merritt Island launch sites which should be treated as a stub to both. I'd go add it myself, but given the recent vandalism I'll wait till we are agreed? Tkech (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidential elections results

User:Dwilso has indicated "I can't read the last paragraph because the presidential results interupt it", referring to the table in the "Government" section. Does anyone else have this same problem? I am unable to detect it with my setup. Tim Ross (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the edits too. The tables have been around for so long (at least a year, maybe a lot longer) that I'm thinking the problem would have been noticed a long time ago if it was really widespread. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV paras on where Democrats come from

I've been in on a number of discussions in other articles about voting and politics. The problems comes in where editors start talking about where votes are coming from and how future elections will turn out. For one thing, every vote counts (despite 2000!). Therefore the first vote counted in Florida is important. No area determines how the vote turns out. To do so, is to embrace a television fantasy that they use to keep people tuned in to their station. The last vote is not more important than the first vote. Each counts "one!" Television just tries to make them more interesting. This has nothing to do with reality which is what Wikipedia tries to concern itself with. So a bunch of people somewhere do not "determine" how Florida votes. There are no "swing" areas. I think the paragraphs did concern themselves with the past.

Sometimes, paragraphs seemed to project or predict the future which not only cannot be done in politics but it's against Wikipedia policy. Sometimes putting a group of sentences together that are themselves accurate can be POV if no analyst has put them together in quite that way before. So the editor needs to ensure that the idea presented is not novel. That would be WP:OR. The sentences do need footnotes.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the line about the Democratic primary but then I wrote it! Some other editor removed it. Feel free to put it back. You have my support!  :) I would think it should be quietly mentioned someplace. I thought I had done that in a subdued enough fashion. Oh, well. Student7 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed present tense not only because the article referenced was from 1998 but because nobody knows what today's voter is thinking until s/he pulls the lever or stays home, as the case may be. Wikipedia does a fair job of reporting the past. We are exhorted not to predict the future. Most pundit type articles try to do just that and therefore shouldn't be used. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and State Abbreviations

The state infobox implies that the postal abbreviation and ISO abbreviations are the only abbreviations for the state, ignoring the traditional abbreviation (Fla.). This may be an issue with the infobox template itself, but it should be addressed. Twalls (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Politics

In order to raise the temperature, some editors would like to project trends into the future or say that we know exactly today what voters are thinking, doing, and how they are going to vote. This is wrong in Wikipedia. We know the past. We don't know if 10,000 "Cubans" took the plane today for another part of the country. News at 11. We are not television nor a newspaper. We report the past and with the exception of elected officials, always in the past. And we don't know what these elected officials are going to do today either. Change parties maybe? News at 11. We don't need to breathlessly report todays facts which will change tomorrow.

It lowers the temperature and allows us all to edit rationally when we report the past as it should be reported. If it happened in 2008, it is still the past. If we word it correctly, we won't need to edit it tomorrow or tend it everyday like a garden.

The I-4 comment was a throwaway remark by a columnist. One could make the same remark about I-95 or I-75 or any other major TP in Florida. If the editor insists that it stay there, the 40% remark, which the columnist also said, should stay there as well. Anytime you can throw a loop around 40% of a state's population, you probably are going to define a "swing" vote. It is a silly remark and I don't think it should be in there in the first place. No vote is "better" than another in any state. That is a stupid television comment meant to keep us all tuned in and having nothing to do with reality. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what makes you so dubious of the article. The I-4 corridor is a big swing area because of its similar number of Republican and Democratic voters. The area could easily be tipped in favor of either party. I don't know why you have an unreasonable dislike of the word "swing", its a good word because it can easily "swing" from one party to the other; it is a good term to use to describe the political behavior of the I-4 corridor. Also I'm sorry, but you are wrong about the I-75 and I-95 areas, they are very different from the I-4 area. I-95 is largely split with Republicans dominating the northern portion and Democrats dominating the southern portion which is the South Florida Metro area and I-75 is mostly dominated by Republicans all the way through. I-4 is different because it is a pretty mixed bag of Republicans and Democrats all the way through with Republicans having only a slight advantage in recent years.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Go with the I-4 if you want. Please use the 40% remark, which was part of the original article. If we are going to refer to articles, they need to be accurately quoted.Student7 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

State Motto

Holy Shit!!! Florida's State Motto is NOT "In God We Trust". That's the UNITED STATE'S MOTTO, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! somebody get the real motto on here...god...buncha' yankees...x(

The country and state have the same motto. Check out the seal. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a page on MyFlorida.com, the Official Portal of the State of Florida, which addresses the issue: link. The legislature actually passed a law in 2006 establishing "In God We Trust" as the official state motto. The phrase has appeared on the state seal since 1868 as an unofficial motto. There is some more information at List of Florida state symbols, which is all referenced, complete with links to the state statutes when applicable. Horologium (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tallahassee Population

Just a minor thing, but in the "Largest Cities and Towns" section, Tallahassee should be in the >150,000 population category as the second largest city in the group. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.45.95 (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

One of fifty states

(Moved down to new section to maintain chronology) Yes, Jewish ancestry should at least be mentioned in the demographics section, seeing how it's at about twice the national average. Also, as I feel about the rest of the American States, it should be stressed the Florida is ONE of the United States, not just simply a U.S. state, and as it is in the Constistution, the word "State" should always be capitalized. The significance of our federation should not be understated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supo1987 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you take that up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states, where they specify that there be an article called U.S. states. -- Donald Albury 12:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I broke this out of the first header because it belongs at the bottom, in a section of its own.

Since this article is semi-protected, Supo1987 was not able to change the text of the article, as he is doing with all of the other state pages. As to ancestry, that has been discussed above, and there is no reliable source for that information. The topic is addressed in the article in the "relion" section. Horologium (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming

Could someone just elide the speculation on global warming and hurricanes? It's pretty axe-grindy hanging where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.118.176 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.33.78 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers

Top and bottom of the national list is fairly notable and noticeable. No point in whitewashing it. This is a cultural thing. Who will care that the Jewish population of Miami ia 16.9% in ten years? Or any other fact in here? It is significant. All that was there was the facts. It is as much a fact as anything else in this article. Student7 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a minor and transient piece of news, unlikely to matter to anyone in a few months. Even it you can find a consensus here to include it, it does not belong at the top of the article. Now, find a reliable source that discusses this in depth and analyses why it happens and what the consequences for the state are, and you will have something worth adding to the article. -- Donald Albury 14:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Donald Albury on this, although I don't necessarily agree with the rationale he provided in his revert. It most assuredly does not belong in the section on language. Horologium (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not difficult to come up with a section/article on volunteerism at the local level or even the county level. It is nearly impossible at the state level since volunteering isn't done generally at that level. But this article (and subsidiary/forked articles) should contain that sort of information. Toqueville covered volunteerism in his epochal work Democracy in America, (cleverly not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but then nothing else is either!). He felt it was fundamental to the American spirit. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this to Americans! So standing poorly is significant IMO. But it is (as is everything) up to the reader to interpret it. But if it is censored then, of course, it can't be analyzed. (Funny. I had no problem whatever when I placed highly scoring notices in those states.  :) Student7 (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Donald. This is not a case of "censorship", it's a case of removing a factoid of only minor importance. I doubt such a trivial statistic should be mentioned in any state article. And it most certainly does not belong in the Language section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Cuchullain, this is not significant enough to be in the main state article. Censorship isn't relevant here, selection of the most important content is. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the single sentence read (no pov inserts),"The rate of volunteerism in Florida was 49th in the nation with 20% in 2007. Miami was 50th among 50 major cities." (reliable footnote based on national AP article)

What I would like to hear is why Miami is such a model city that low volunteerism can be ignored. I think an objective reader, seeing the above would draw their own conclusions. Except that they won't be allowed to since the information won't be there.

Also, why editors of articles about cities who stood tops think that this issue is vital enough to keep! I'm hearing a lot of "I vote for Joe, Sam and Jack" but not a lot of objectivity as to why volunteering is unimportant and why Toqueville was wrong. Student7 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One, the report has no context. The report had Utah at the top of the list. At a guess, I would attribute that to the large number of Mormons in that state. On the other hand, Florida has a large number of recent immigrants who may not share a 'volunteerism' ethic, although I expect that their children or grandchildren will. But that is all speculation on my part, and without reliable sources providing context the report, it is rather meaningless.

Two, editors who happily add what they think are favorable reports to articles about cities or states, whether or not they really mean anything, are engaged in 'civic boosterism', which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See the recent editing histories of Gainesville, Florida and Valdosta, Georgia for my efforts to fight that sort of thing. -- Donald Albury 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many state rankings around, some frivolous, I admit.

One ranked "health" based on some assortment of factors. I presume that might meet with your approval (if significantly high or low which it wasn't). Others purport to rank education which can be pov. I try to look at those, but those might be included right? Context and all that? (Florida is average BTW and if not here someplace else already). Others rank real estate based on problems/lack of problems. It would seem downright boosterism to omit those if Florida did not do well (towards the bottom but not the worst as I recall).Student7 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting of discussions about drilling

Do we really require in this section every blow by blow stand of every politician who is for and against drilling and when they changed and why? How about putting down 1) what the law is today. and 2) a proposed change that has the best chance of passing/consideration, but not everything that everybody ever said about it. Maybe we could go into more detail in some forked article? Student7 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in Environment of Florida, word for word (except for today's edits). That section was added by me to this article when I significantly expanded the environment article; I'm not committed to keeping it, but it is rather timely considering the president's rescission of the Executive order banning exploration two weeks ago. Jeb Bush's views could be pared out, but Crist's views (and that of the two senators) are relevant to the issue. I worked very hard to make that section NPOV, which is why it has a blow-by-blow breakdown; I didn't want to misrepresent anyone's views, and the timeline was needed to make it clear how the players' views evolved. Horologium (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was rude. I apologize. I have changed the section title.

I agree that it is npov. I think the Jeb Bush issue should be somewhere else since it wasn't enacted. It may important to "environmental history" and/or "legislative history" but IMO not important enough for here.

The current issue is different and should stay IMO. But having Christ, Nelson and Martinez together clashes. As has been pointed out, the latter are federal, the first state. I don't really care who supports it if it isn't in their particular jurisdiction. For example, I don't care if Nelson supports or doesn't support Christ, since it is basically irrelevant to what happens. The feds need to be separated from the state IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive Tidal Wave From Canary Island Volcano

There seems to be a concerted effort to hide this from the readers of this article about the potential for massive loss of life in low lying Florida. Estimates range from total destruction of first 5 miles inland from east coast of Florida to going as far inland is Orlando. http://www.rense.com/general13/tidal.htm http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_damage_will_the_Cumbre_Vieja_Volcano_do_to_the_East_coast_of_Florida_if_it_erupts . Why hide it? A tsunami warning system would help evacuation. A series of controlled blasts to lower the volcano's height slowly could also be done by United Nations. But, this problem is hidden by people wanting to profit from sale of coastal real estate. -Anon e mouse..