Jump to content

Talk:Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion Archives

[edit]

Talk Page Archive until December 25th, 2008

White Washing

[edit]

I changed the wording around in the motorcycle rallies section. please feel free to edit. the text seem very pro myrtle beach. Also the stating an end date of the white bike week 1940 to 2008 make the article appear to say the rally is over. the rally took place in 2009 and this year, but with limited numbers. I removed 2008 and changed the number to As high as 200,000. Also 200,000 people didn't come each year since 1940, the number just reached those highs a few years ago, in 1940 it start with less then a few hundred. I also add the highs for black bike week "400,000".

I also change some pro myrtle beach text concerning the stopping of motorcycle rallies. the text seem to say that the government canceled the rallies. the government pass 15 new laws in an attempt to stop the rallies. People come to SC to ride free "i.e. with no helmets", the helmet law was created to discourage motorcycle riders from coming, but legally the government cannot stop motorcycle riding tourist from freely traveling to the city 'even though the helmet law did stop a lot of bikers, but not all". The nature of both motorcycle rallies is something unique. neither rallies were organized by governments or institution, they are both headless, mob like, word of mouth events where bikers just show up. the events have no head so it's not really possible to cancel either event, the 15 ordinance where created to basically hassle and piss the bikers off so they wouldn't come "and they worked", but Myrtle Beach cannot legally cancel either events "that's why they created the laws" with that being said the text should say discourage bikers from coming, not canceling motorcycle rallies.

Also the text doesn't state that myrtle beach was pro white bike week, but against black bike week, and myrtle beach made attempts to stop the black bike week "through harassment and traffic patterns, while supporting white bike week "not harassing and different traffic pattern" this is why the NAACP sued myrtle beach and other businesses that refused to serve black bike week visitors by closing their doors "but putting welcome sign up during white bike week" This part doesn't need to be in the article. but myrtle beach canceled white bike week solely because it had to cause it couldn't solely discriminate against black bike week "i.e. white bike week just fell under the umbrella of the 15 new laws" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.93 (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

While I have tried to make significant upgrades to the page, it desperately needs some pictures of local attractions. I added some with permission but they were removed. Could someone add some of their own or something? As for Hard Rock Park....it re-opens by Memorial Day. Why remove references to that?ChrisJsc (talk)


The first photo in the Tourism section is captioned "Myrtle Beach in the morning, photographed on July 16, 2012 from the ninth floor of a beachfront resort hotel" while the photo description says "I took photo from ninth floor of a hotel of the beach in early morning at Myrtle Beach, SC, using Canon camera". Not only is it clearly nor early morning it self evidently wasn't taken from the ninth floor of anything except perhaps an anthill. 80.189.38.197 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current Issues

[edit]

The Myrtle Beach article still has some major issues:

  • Expand Sections -- Many sections tend to be a sentence or two, if that. Two new sections, Religion and Parks and Rec., need special attention
  • Verify and Diversify History -- The History section still lacks a lot of information about the area and still relies on a few basic sources.
  • Images -- The article is still very dry and each section deserves at least one image. The religion section could use, say, a picture of a local historic church, and I'm sure there are more than a few pictures of parks or, say, the beach.

Some issues that seem to have died down:

  • Advertising -- The disclaimer at the start of the article, coupled with a more atmospheric, less "advertising land grab" feel, seems to have killed off some of the more frequent advertisements. Carson (talk)

NPOV, Summary Style and Black Bike Week

[edit]

I appreciate the desire to clean this article up and tighten up the prose, but reducing the description of the two motorcycle rallies to only two sentences is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. The guidelines in Wikipedia:Summary style provide help on how to properly summarize the contents of a related article. Summary style explains that a certain amount of redundancy between two articles is to be expected.

It's of particular concern that this article has been expunged of negative and controversial information. Whenever you create a situation where all the negative information is offloaded to another article, you risk creating a POV fork.

A neutral article about Myrtle Beach needs to inform readers not only that there were two motorcycle rallies, but why there are two racially divided rallies. Further, the policy of prohibiting all rallies rather than treat them equally is related to historical examples of closing public accommodations or canceling events in the South rather than integrate them. And since there are at least two major factions within Myrtle Beach -- a city government opposed to rallies and a group of merchants who favor them -- the policy of NPOV requires that both points of view be included. Similarly, there are points of view favoring and opposing the helmet law in Myrtle Beach. While the old paragraph on the bike rallies was far from perfect, it was better than leaving the controversey out completely. Until a better version is written which includes a balanced mention of all the issues, good and bad, and all sides of the issue, then the old paragraph needs to be restored. --Dbratland (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concise rather wordiness

[edit]

My edit has nothing to do with hiding this controversy. I appreciate the fact that you are a motorcycle enthusiast but this article is about Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and not so much Bike Week or Black Bike Week. A large percent of this article should not be usurped for use by a section of little importance to the majority of users.

If the editor wishes to discuss the issues involving the two motorcycle weeks then feel free to start article(s) with that limited focus as Myrtle Beach is more defined than what happens 2-3 weeks every year. Perhaps referencing the unfortunate racial issues in the history section in the concise nature that this project expects.

It is obvious that one can note the bike rallies in a concise nature and then link to your new articles about the controversy. My edit was in no means perfect but at least it moves the article along to the next point and does not wallow in the minutia of a single issue.

As per helmet laws. There are already numerous helmet law articles on Wikipedia that an interested user can still reference. That is again far too narrow of focus on a broad article such as this. Why not reference Myrtle Beach's litter laws? Or strip club regulations? Or Curfew laws?

Fryeguy (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments have no basis in Wikipedia policy. Specifically WP:Summary style and WP:NPOV contradict you. Motorcycling issues are not required to be kept away from articles about cities, and helmet law issues aren't only discussed on articles about helmet laws. The helmet law question in this case is a dispute between factions in Myrtle Beach and in South Carolina, and it's unique as far as I know -- no other locality I have heard of has used helmet laws as a way of driving away motorcyclists (or black people), as many contend. It's a Myrtle Beach issue. Business Owners Organized to Save Tourism is a local group that was created to oppose the city government's "selective tourism" -- anti-motorcycle or anti-African American, depending on whom you ask. The disputes that take place in Myrtle Beach politics belong without a doubt in this article.

Again, please read WP:Summary style. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina is not too long by any stretch of the imagination and so you can't say there isn't room. The policy guidance makes clear that the major issues related to Myrtle Beach detailed in Black Bike Week ought to be fairly summarized here.

A careful reading of WP:NPOV tells us that the article must include these controversies, the court battles, and multiple points of view should be included. This is an encyclopedia article, not a tourist advertisement, and if some of the facts make the city look bad, so be it.

A shorter summary is perfectly acceptable, but the summary has to include the good with the bad and not whitewash the story.--Dbratland (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit brings an acceptable level of balance, I think. I would probably have wanted a bit more detail and specific references, but I won't keep harping on it.--Dbratland (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that back. This nonsense edit made me realize that this needs to have a full summary of what the issues were, who was involved, and what the outcome was. Just saying there was some kind of racial controversy obscures the fact that the city and many businesses were embroiled in lawsuits over discrimination against blacks. The city's attempt to end both rallies was in response to that. Copious independent sources, as well as press releases from the various parties involved, verify this.--Dbratland (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag going once, going twice...

[edit]

Anyone have a specific reason to keep the {{POV}} tag? --Dbratland (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no objections, I'm removing the tag.--Dbratland (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Education Section Updated

[edit]

I have updated the education section both college/post secondary and private adding 6 private schools, adding Miller-Motte Tech College to the post secondary section and adding that the Webster University campus is the Myrtle Beach Metropolitan Campus. MBGuyCasey (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

The IPA looks unlikely - primary stress on a schwa; "ʊr" followed by a consonant - is this correct? Peter James (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I literally just copy/pasted what looked appropriate at the time (I don't exactly "speak" IPA), so if you can improve upon it, please do! Carson (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thong bikini ban

[edit]

I have added this small subsection to make note of Myrtle Beach's ban on thong bikinis (with references to Myrtle Beach laws page, a Myrtle Beach site, and a news station). Such a ban is very rare in the United States and persons arrested under the ban have received widespread news coverage.

However this small subsection has already been removed several times.

Whether or not the ban is appropriate or where it applies is up to the people of Myrtle Beach. Whether or not someone should be arrested is up to the Myrtle Beach police. Whether or not the ban is constitutional is up to the courts. Whether or not we mention it in this Myrtle Beach article is up to the Wikipedia community.

Happy Independence Day! Facts707 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

now that a secondary reliable source has been added, I won't be removing it again for now. However, the year old story indicated that the city was planning on repealing the ordinance and it stated that it was identical to the state's ordinance. So, sorry, I am still questioning its value in this article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last week yet another otherwise innocent woman, acrobat and aerial performer Sam Panda, ran afoul of the thong ban, got detained for 20 minutes and even placed in handcuffs! If anyone wants to update the main article, here's 2 links:
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/acrobat-handcuffed-myrtle-beach-thong-bikini
https://www.wbtw.com/news/well-known-acrobat-asked-to-leave-myrtle-beach-over-thong-ordinance-video-goes-viral/
Phantom in ca (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist
  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/faq.html
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist
  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/faq.html
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist
  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/faq.html
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit I made on 02:09, 5 June 2018

[edit]

According to User:John from Idegon, the recent 2018 US News finding (Myrtle Beach ranked the #1 destination to move to in 2018) I added to the introduction is "Improper content for lede. may be appropriate elsewhere". An alternative approach would be to add a separate section within the main article titled "Rankings" or something related, and to include my edits in that section.

However, I must kindly disagree. Look at the Wikipedia pages for other major cities (San Francisco, New York City, Austin), and one can note similar mentions about US News and other rankings in the introduction section. For example, the introduction for Denver, Colorado states "In 2016, Denver was named the best place to live in the United States by U.S. News & World Report."

Nobody has raised any issue with this practice in these pages, therefore, I find it reasonable to apply this to the Myrtle Beach page.

I hope this facilitates a respectful discussion about this finding and hopefully reach a consensus amongst interested users. I hope we can eventually reincorporate the changes I made (which cited a reliable source, US News), even if it appears elsewhere in the article. Thoughts?

47.185.106.248 (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEDE for what a lede should contain. See WP:OSE for an explanation of how the Wikipedia community stands on arguments to precident. And I'd strongly oppose a separate section based on WP:USCITY and WP:WEIGHT. Basically what we have is a unscientific pop poll. These polls promotional value far outweighs their informative value. We have a pillar policy about promotion, WP:NOTPROMO. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. But I still have to disagree. The practices in the other cities' pages that I mentioned allow for the inclusion of notable information without sounding promotional, and adhere to the pillar policy, so I don't see how mine differed. The links you posted do not invalidate my point. 47.185.106.248 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to precident are seldom persuasive, and they are not here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty Myrtle"

[edit]

This article (Dec. 13 '21) says that it's not really an active nickname anymore but is still well recognized. Mapsax (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myrtle_Beach,_South_Carolina&oldid=1208905445"