Talk:Akron, Ohio/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Zipper

In looking at the article Zipper, itself a poorly cited article, I did notice a discussion about the location of the invention of the zipper at Talk:Zipper. No mention is made of Akron as a sourced location and the actual patent filed by Whitcomb L. Judson states he is from Chicago. While that merely indicates he was living in Chicago at the time of his patent, I find it difficult to believe that he was living in Chicago but worked in Akron or invented it in Akron and then went back to Chicago to file the patent. Until we have a difinitive source that states he invented it while living in Akron, it really can't be in the article under an assumption. As far as I can find, Akron's role in the zipper is the name, first coined by B.F. Goodrich in the 1920s for their popular rubber overshoe, which featured what we now call a zipper. Over time, the name developed into a generic term associated with the fastener instead of the shoe. This is also the source of the University of Akron team name, the Zips (see Origin of "Zips" nickname. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wagon Wheel

The Wagon Wheel is a notable trophy, but is only one aspect of the University of Akron (and the larger Akron-Kent rivalry) and the athletic department and it's notablilty is low. Remember, the main subject is the city of Akron, so the main focus is on the fact that the city is home to the University's athletic teams and that the teams compete in the NCAA Division I; it is not a section to dive into the rivalries of each team. Remember, the Akron-Kent rivalry itself isn't even notable as it is a regional rivalry that has had not only no national impact, but also minimal impact within the Mid-American Conference. Mentioning the rivalry is appropriate on the Akron Zips and Akron Zips football articles as well as the Kent State versions of each one. If you really feel the need to add additional detail about the Zips athletics, the fact that the men's soccer team is currently ranked #1 (and has been previously) is far more notable and interesting than the Wagon Wheel, which has little interest or meaning outside Summit and Portage Counties. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While I fixed the link in the section, I felt that its inclusion in the article was debatable. It is a side fact that says more about Akron U than it does about the city of Akron. --Beirne (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Other notable aspects that could be mentioned include the facilities where the teams play (since they are notable and in Akron), such as Summa Field at InfoCision Stadium and the James A. Rhodes Arena, just like Canal Park and Firestone Stadium are mentioned for the Aeros and Racers. The key here is really to summarize and let the reader know the very basics about sports in Akron. The Madison, Wisconsin article has a good section (in my opinion) relating to sports, at least as far as how their collegiate sports are mentioned. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Threeblur's last two changes where they put back the Wagon Wheel info and added lots of championship dates. The Wagon Wheel issue should be discussed here rather than through edits. Also, enumerating championship dates for teams in Akron should be done in the article for the team, not in an article about Akron. Unless there is something noteworthy about the championships and what they say about Akron, they are not relevant here. --Beirne (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. For one thing, professional sports teams are far more notable than a non-BCS, mid-major Division I NCAA school, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Again, look at Madison, Wisconsin, a city comparable to Akron in that it has a large Division I school and few (if any) professional teams. Second, you'll note that the sections you referenced below include only the most notable facts about each team, not a listing of all their championship years or major rivalries. Each also mentions their respective home venues. If you really feel like the men's soccer team needs to have championships listed, you would simply say they have "won 12 Mid-American Conference titles with the most recent being in 2009" even though it's not really that notable. Should the Zips win the national championship, that should certainly be mentioned. You would not list each championship year in this article because there is an entire article for the men's soccer team and the overall athletic department. Remember, stick to what is directly relevant and avoid spinning the section into things only tangential to the main topic. For a city that currently has only two minor professional teams, it sure has a long section on sports. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Current sports teams

Cleveland's professional sports teams include the Cleveland Indians (Major League Baseball), Cleveland Browns (National Football League), Cleveland Cavaliers (National Basketball Association), Cleveland City Stars (United Soccer Leagues), and Lake Erie Monsters (American Hockey League). The Cleveland Indians last reached the World Series in 1997, losing to the Florida Marlins, and have not won the series since 1948. Between 1995 and 2001, Progressive Field sold out 455 consecutive games and held a Major League Baseball record until it was broken in 2008. The Cleveland Cavaliers are experiencing a renaissance with Cleveland fans due to LeBron James, a native of nearby Akron and the number one overall draft pick of 2003. The Cavaliers won the Eastern Conference in 2007, but were defeated in the NBA Finals by the San Antonio Spurs. The original Browns, who last won an NFL championship in 1964 (three years before the creation of the Super Bowl), relocated to Baltimore, Maryland to become the Ravens after the 1995 season, thus sparking controversy and bitter feelings toward then-owner Art Modell, as well as an intense rivalry between the two cities; however, a new Browns team was created as a replacement, making its debut in 1999. The city's recent lack of success in sports has earned it a reputation of being a cursed sports city, which ESPN validated by proclaiming Cleveland as its "most tortured sports city" in 2004. The city's current soccer team, the Cleveland City Stars, play in the USL First Division. They play their home games at Middlefield Cheese Stadium in Bedford.

As you can see Cleveland's even include events that are below championship gaining, also going by what your saying, the whole section shouldnt exist and nor this

The Yankees have enjoyed 27 championships, while the Mets have won the World Series on two occasions

from NYC's page.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with saying how many championships a team won in the city, but don't see any point to listing every year there was a championship. --Beirne (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Bern. Other rivalriess dont have notable trophies that they contend for, the fact that Akron goes against Kent for the trophy is the only reason the rivalry and kent is mentioned. Like other trophies and championships, it is notable and should also be mentioned where it is won.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of other schools play for trophies with rivals, many of which are far more notable than the Wagon Wheel. See Category:College football rivalry trophies. Even then, there is still little or no mention of the trophy on other city articles where the university plays, even cities with larger universities and more notable football teams than Akron. The few mentions I can find of rivalry games in city articles simply state the city hosts the rivalry game; they do not give the latest results. Again, the Wagon Wheel is directly related to the University of Akron, but indirectly related to the city of Akron through the University. If readers want to know more details about the Akron football team, wikilinks to Akron Zips football and Akron Zips are both already in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Akron Zips men's basketball team has won one regular season championship (1986) as a member of the Ohio Valley Conference. In the MAC they have won 2 MAC East division championships, but zero regular-season overall titles. They have won two conference tournaments, one in the OVC (1986) and of course the most recent MAC tournament. But even then, winning just a few championships doesn't mean they should be listed here. Remember, there is an entire article for both the Akron Zips and the men's basketball team so we don't need excessive details here. Watch out for boosterism. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, John your child genes are showing due to my unadulterated mind. Do you find time to do this out of anger or jealousy, likely both. The way it is now is acceptable with links so i have come to the conclusion it will stay in its current stat til for the moment. And Johnathon, im glad you arnt taking my lessons in vein. Watch out for sin.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Places and landmarks not well-known to outsiders

I have removed the paragraph listing districts and landmarks said to be well-known to outsiders. First, outsiders barely know where Akron is. I travel for my job and Akron isn't as well-known as I thought it was. The only well-known thing on the list is the Soap Box Derby, and it is discussed elsewhere in the article. Few outside Akron know about Quaker Square, and now that it is part of Akron U it isn't even very interesting for Akronites. Cereal was not made at Quaker Oats in Akron into the late 1900s, it was more like the late 1960s. The towpath is a nice trail but isn't that noteworthy outside of the area. And finally, I don't think people think of St. Thomas Hospital when they think of AA. Each of these are discussed elsewhere in the article in a correct context. Putting them in a paragraph of empty boosterism does nothing for the article or for Akron. --Beirne (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's especially important with it being initially placed in the lead. The lead should basically summarize the entire article. It is appropriate to highlight a few important things that are mentioned later in the article, but the mention need not be lengthy or detailed. And saying they're "well-known to outsiders" is unnecessary since they really shouldn't be in the lead if they aren't well-known to outsiders. Remember, this isn't a brochure trying to sell Akron; it's an article about Akron and all the things notable about it. Basically, Akron is known for its role in the early Rubber Industry, as home of the Soap-Box Derby, and as the founding place of AA, and to a lesser degree, it's role in the early canals (hence its name). A separate "Etymology" section would be appropriate rather than having the name "Akron" explained in the lead. In all honesty, I think the lead of this article already a bit too long. The history section really needs some work because it lacks organization and has no subheadings, so it jumps around from era to era and topic to topic. Not really sure why the subheadings were removed in the first place. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I put it back because its true. First, outsider are starting to know, especially for the last two years, due to movies and Lebron etc. I went to New York last weekend and i was asked where im from and i said Lebron's hometown (Akron is what they said). Besides that it dosent matter if someone on the street knows, people in bussiness and corperate and government operations might be. It was from the 30's to 70's. 2 million visitors seems enough, but still up for debate. Trust me, i talked to a couple of AA members from different citties and they all know where it began. The paragraph is similar to the NYC paragraph actually.--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Be cafeful citing people you talked to in NYC (how many? 100? 1000? There are over 8 million people just in NYC) or a "couple of AA members" as reasons for including anything in a Wikipedia article. Just because people have heard of Akron now that LeBron James is famous doesn't mean they know it's every detail and history nor could even point it out on a map. It all depends on who you talk to if they even know who LeBron James is (sorry, not everyone follows basketball). I have done my own travels and will usually say I'm from near "Akron, Ohio" and then have to almost always add "near Cleveland" even since LeBron arrived. It also does not justify adding duplicate info to an already too-long lead section. And remember, just because the New York City article says something doesn't mean it's a template for this article. Make sure you read WP:LEAD: It (the lead) should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. (emphasis added) --JonRidinger (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying "have become well-known to outsiders" implies some general renown, meaning the person on the street. Everything is well-known to some people but not necessarily a lot. The Soap Box Derby is the only thing in the list with something close to general reknown, but I don't think most people know about Derby Downs, they just know that the event is held in Akron. The towpath may have 2 million visitors, but I bet the vast majority are locals. It's not like the Appalachian trail where people travel far to get to it. And while AA members may know that AA started in Akron, saying that St. Thomas is well-known because of this is a stretch. --Beirne (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's another good point; simply being able to connect "Akron" with something doesn't mean they know the specifics or that the actual sites are "well-known". Even with LeBron, I doubt many of his casual fans outside this area could even name the high school he attended unless they've really been following him, but they can identify his hometown as "Akron". The same goes for Derby Downs and AA. In reading the history of AA, this page needs to be careful it doesn't try to re-write history. In looking at http://www.aa.org/aatimeline/, no mention is made of St. Thomas in any form and certainly not as a founding point. In fact, the "founding date" of AA is celebrated as the day of the founder's "last drink", so there isn't a place that is historically marked as the "founding spot" of AA. I also agree with the thoughts on the Towpath Trail. It should be mentioned as part of the parks system, but it is hardly a "well-known" feature to non-locals and even to locals who don't use the parks. In any case, the entire lead section needs to be rewritten in my opinion so that it summarizes what is in the article instead of containing the large amount of unique material it currently does. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Race relations history

While I'm glad to finally see subheadings return to the history section of this article, I'm not totally sold on the "race relations history" section. Is there another way to word this or organize it? For instance, the Sojourner Truth speech is actually a gender issue, not a race one, and even abolitionism isn't really an example of "race relations" as many abolitionists were racist as well. Abolitionism was more a political movement with religious roots; it had very little to do with race or racial equality. In other words, abolitionists were anti-slavery; not anti-racist. Racism the way we understand it today was far more widespread and considered "normal" well into the 20th century. When I see "Race relations history" I think of a section that details racially-motivated riots, policies, and other stresses in the city's history (like what happened in Detroit and Chicago in the 1960s) and I don't know of any major racially-motivated events in Akron's history. I'm thinking maybe we could organize the history a little differently. It doesn't have to be chronological, but it doesn't have to be strictly itemized either. Perhaps some of the pre-Civil War stuff could be relocated to the early history section? Just a suggestion --JonRidinger (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The section should be in with the history rather than part of demographics, but beyond that I would tend to put the individual facts in the chronology, or make the history section more topical. In terms of how the items count as race if they remain together that way, I'd include John Brown, the Klan and the 1968 riots as racial issues, wouldn't include the Black Hand, would give a pass on Sojourner Truth, and don't know about the 1900 riot. --Beirne (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of neighborhoods sentence

I put a clarify tag on the sentence "The neighborhoods of the city, sits at elevations from 955 ft (291 m) to 1,004 ft (306 m) above sea level, as the city is the highest point on the Ohio Erie Canal.". The sentence is ungramatical, as the comma after "city" does not fit and "sits" is third person singular, but the subject appears to be plural. I could fix this, but the rest of the sentence says that the variation in altitude comes from the city being the high point on the canal, which does not make any sense. --Beirne (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of Polymer Valley Chemical

I removed the reference to Polymer Valley Chemical as it is in Cuyahoga Falls. Threeblur0 has restored it and asked for proof. According to the county tax records [1] the address falls in the Cuyahoga Falls City homestead district, a good sign of it being in Cuyahoga Falls. Note that the appearance of Akron in the address refers to the post office, not the city. That is why Green, for example, does not have Green mailing addresses. --Beirne (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the link, i cant seem to find proof of that relating to Polymer Valley Chemical, i cant even find the company names printed, is it just me.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Polymer Valley Chemical is on 1872 Akron-Peninsula Rd. See http://www.polymervalleychemicals.com/ for verification. That is the address the link points to. --Beirne (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is located within the city's boundaries on the map, the falls is close to the right.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me the map.--Beirne (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also on google map, it is located in the Merriam Vally neighborhood.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS260US260&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=akron+ohio+polymer+valley&fb=1&gl=us&hq=polymer+valley&hnear=akron+ohio&ei=aKoSS5nvCozTlAfhl_iQBA&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA4QtgMwAA

The map does not show that the address or the company is in Akron. The Merriman Valley has real ragged borders between Akron and the Falls due to piecemeal annexation by Akron years ago. That's why I had to go to the county property records. --Beirne (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But does it show that it is in Cuyahoga.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuyahoga...Falls...--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The county record shows this: DISTRICT 35 CUYAHOGA FALLS CITY-WOODRIDGE LSD. It would not show this if it were in Akron. --Beirne (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where i messed up now, i looked for the name and not the address on the site you gave, you are correct.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Grassman?

I'm not sure the Grassman section belongs in the article. There isn't any proof the Grassman exists, and there aren't even good references saying that it was seen in Kenmore. Even if there were, it would be little different than flying saucer and ghost sightings, and not worthy of inclusion in the Akron article. If we are going to include this kind of speculation then next we will be adding Schumacher's Gold and ghosts at the Hower House. --Beirne (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I added link to the episode(which i saw) where they said kenmore, and also put another link that is a blog, like Jon said before, its acceptable when video proof is unavaible on web.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link to askville. It just quotes the Grassman article from Wikipedia. I also saw the show, but just remember it saying "near Akron". Kenmore would have stuck out for me, because I remember wondering where near Akron it was. --Beirne (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops i meant to put Akron, also, its part of a popular culture section, also New Jersey has a section with the New Jersey Devil, pretty much belongs.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Near Akron", though, would not be Kenmore. And yes, the Jersey Devil is about as true as the Grassman, but it has a longer history and a clearer tie to the state than the Grassman does to Akron. --Beirne (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is better, http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_article.asp?id=255 --Threeblur0 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A better link, but reading the article at the link Akron does not particularly stand out as a Grassman location. The title of The Kenmore Grassman appears to be more of a Beacon Journal section header than a real name for the Grassman, who has been "seen" in 41 counties of Ohio. This does not make Akron's appearances any more unique to the city than to anywhere else. The Beacon Journal just happened to write about it for the local angle. --Beirne (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the beacon used the name after hearing it, other uses of it exist other then the beacon such as http://www.freewebs.com/paranormalohio/cryptidsinohio.htm and i doubt that all who use it read the beacon journal report and plus its extremely unprofessional and unlikely that i paper would use a neighborhood as a nickname, your just using speculations now, and the fact one of its names came from an Akron neighborhood makes its more unique to the city.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The page you point to just quotes Wikipedia again. This is why I try to correct errors quickly, because too many people assume that the Wikipedia is reliable and pass on the information. Meanwhile, according to the BJ article, the locals called the creature "The Grassman", which leads me to think that the BJ put The Kenmore Grassman in as a title on their own. This is an article about mythical creatures, after all, so it doesn't call for serious journalism. Even if they do call it the Kenmore Grassman in Kenmore, it has been seen in 40 other counties in Ohio, which doesn't make it unique. --Beirne (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it is possible that the Wikipedia material was lifted from the page you just gave me rather than the other way around. In that case we are just quoting some guy's web page, not a very reliable source. Either way, the creature is not unique to Akron. --Beirne (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It has to due with Akron because it got its name "Grassman" from Akron residents who said "it inhabited a swampy area off Manchester Road,". Ohio.com was not around in 1995 so i think the name "Kenmore Grassman" came from another source or actual newspaper and gained plublicity.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting its name from residents of the city while in city limits, and possibly(most likely) being named after a neighborhood of the city, makes it unique to the city.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just replayed part of the MonsterQuest show from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuOgj6Eteag. They talk about investigating a site "outside of Akron", so the MonsterQuest part doesn't fit here an article about Akron. Also in the MQ show, Christopher Murphy ascribes the term "grassman" to European people and talks about how the term was used to scare children, sort of like bogeyman. While the people in Kenmore were very possibly European in origin, it sounds like the term predates the BJ article and even the 30 years referred to in it. It sounds like grassman is just what the creature gets called in Ohio. So while the folks in Kenmore may have called the creature the grassman it is not clear that they were the first to do so. --Beirne (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right about that part, and i think we were watching it at the same time, i finished all the parts a lil over a half hour ago, but it dosent say when or who named the creature, and the only data we have of it being officially and news-wide named is the link about it in Kenmore.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But the BJ article does not say who called it the Kenmore grassman, nor does it say that the people in Kenmore were the first to call it the grassman. So saying the term originated in Akron is based on assumptions right now, and since the sightings are hardly unique to Akron there isn't a basis for the mention in the main article about Akron. --Beirne (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if i put something like "the earliest known evidence of naming the creature is 1995 in Akron" that would be true a basis for it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a weak statement and doesn't really merit so much attention in the article. Just because it is the earliest known to you and me doesn't mean that it's the earliest known. Plus, the MQ show makes the name sound more historical. It would be useful to see what Murphy's book says, but couldn't find the text on the web. --Beirne (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also thought that and looked for the book on line, the only other thing i found is this http://hellbenderbyrobertwilliamgrofe.com/Cenozoic_Society.html which has the nicknames listed for it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

swamp?

The article refers to a swamp located to the south of Akron. Is there a swamp there anymore, and where is it? --Beirne (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, once upon a time in 2007 i thought i could walk to the CAK airport by starting from kelly st on the east headed south, after a while i came to the end of Akron, where a colbasack(roundish street from ed, edd, and eddy) is to the east and the surrounding area is swamp, i was suspecting roads or forest, maybe even a grassy plain but nope, but you dont only have to take my word for it, also it took a lil over 5 hours to get to the airport(looking at a map i thought it would be closer)--Threeblur0 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

God you idiot! Either provide a WP:RS or it gets removed. §hep^Talk 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There are swamps all over this area...why is this one of any significance? And no, most maps will not identify a swamp unless it has an actual name or is of significant size. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Steph, tell that to who ever put the information to begin with, but leave the personal attack out, i'll gladly help you on your re-introduction to Wikipedia if needed.

John, i dont know, but it is part of the geography and explains the city's boundaries.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying that there is a swamp in the city absent of any other point is not particularly notable, and its mention relies upon original research, a violation of basic Wikipedia principals. --Beirne (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur, first how does it explain the city's boundaries? Does the swamp itself define any border of Akron with an adjacent city or township? I doubt it. Really, if such a thing were mentioned, it would be in a general sense as I doubt it's the only swamp within the city limits of Akron and so far no significance has been demonstrated at all. And Beirne is correct that it falls under WP:OR since it only has your "word" as a source. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan, why do you and other refer this issue to me? It explains why the city stopped at a certain degree of longitude and lattitude, when they were expanding Akron the swamp stopped its southward growth. No, you both arent, if you go back far enough in the revisions you will see that another editor first mentioned it. --Threeblur0 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They may be referring the issue to you, threeblur0, because you told the story of walking to the airport and discovering the swamp. --Beirne (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You also stated on Step's talk page that you edited it to reword it. If it was unsourced, why not just remove it? And yes, your story of walking 5 hours to CAK was used by you as a reason to keep it in the article and you seem to be defending its placement in the article. It's really irrelevant now who added it. The question now is why do we need to keep it?

Lastly, unless there is an actual source that states a swamp stopped Akron's southern growth and was used to mark part of the city's southern boundary, it's purely speculation. Remember, Akron hasn't grown for a loooooong time, in actual city size (via annexation) or population. Far more than a swamp have contributed to that. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two mentions of the swamp in the article. One mentions it being a barrier to expansion to the south. That may or may not be true. My problem, though, is with the mention in the demographics section. It says "a swamp is also located directly to the south of the city", which makes it sounds like Akron is on the edge of the Everglades, and since there isn't a huge swamp south of Akron this is just random, unsourced trivia. --Beirne (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

IF it is mentioned with reliable sources it would be in the geography section, not demographics. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you two are suffering from group hypnosis cause i can for one cannot see a mention of swamps in the demographics, anyway im off this subject.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, Topography. The same point stands. --Beirne (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 population

I have removed the references to the 2009 population and given 2008 as the most recent year for an estimate. The 2009 number comes from an unofficial source, Sperling's Best Places, and not the Census Bureau. The number itself appears to have come from a 2007 estimate by the Census Bureau[2]. --Beirne (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct that for population numbers, we should always use the Census Bureau numbers. It is also important to use both the official census (last one in 2000) and the most recent estimate, making sure to point out that the estimate is just that: an estimate, not an official count. Also, avoid making conjectures in the article based on population estimates because that falls under WP:CRYSTAL. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What is culture? What is literature?

I have removed some text from the updated culture section because the deleted portions did not fit the section where they were put. In spite of threeblur0's comment that they were removed without reason, the reason was stated in the comment and is clear. Materials research and rubber are science, not culture. Sports are not culture either. Movies aren't literature, even if they come from books. And galoshes aren't literature either. Literature is books. --Beirne (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the globally sentence you removed. If you clearly read it says "Besides rubber, the discovery of polymers have played an important part in the modern day lifestyles of many world cultures. Notable natives of the city such as, Lebron James, have also affected the United States popular culture, being called The King of Basketball by media." this is true and human lifestyle is certainly part of culture, and sports is part of popular culture, which is part of culture.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because the word culture is in the sentence does not make it culture. What you are writing about are the effects of science and sports from Akron, not the effects of Akron's culture. There is a perfectly fine sports section in the article to talk about LeBron's contribution to sports and beyond. Culture is the arts and literature. Plus, you haven't explained how movies and galoshes count as literature. --Beirne (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Im just gonna ignore that pointless juvenile sentence. What I am writng about is things from Akron that have helped shape cultures, human lifestyle = culture. Galoshes aren't even in the sentence, see your just deletng things now due to some sort of rage. But popular culture relates to culture like nicknames.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are writing about the wrong thing, then, and have expanded the word culture so far that it is nearly meaningless. An section on the culture of Akron is supposed to discussed culture in Akron, not some vague sense of how non-cultural achievements in Akron have possibly affected culture outside of Akron. Those items that did not originate from the culture of Akron belong in their appropriate non-culture sections. And the galoshes statement comes from the inclusion of the history of the word "zipper" in the literature section. I assumed you knew that Goodrich's Zippers were galoshes. Just to be clear, Goodrich Zippers were not literature.

No, you are just stating what you think-and-know mostly isnt true. The culture of Akron is clearly discussed in the section, and remember the whole name of the section. What im trying to state and most seem to get, is that without Akron's usage of rubber and polymers, many cultures wouldnt be as they are. When i put zipper, i mean the word, which is part of literature.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the culture of Akron is clearly discussed in the section. The parts that I didn't delete discuss it reasonably well. They discuss culture IN Akron. And while the section title includes "contemporary life", the first words of the section are "The culture of Akron is...". The achievements of rubber, polymers, and LeBron James stand out well in the sections on economics and sports without stretching repeating them and twisting them into culture. BTW, I'm not sure marbles belong in the culture section either but they are just close enough that I've left them so far. And just because zipper became a word does not make it literature. The word zipper does not come from any literary source in Akron, it comes from the industrial sector. Once again, you are stretching meaning to try to boost Akron, where if you just put the description in the proper place it would be correct and would still boost Akron fine. --Beirne (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, If was trying to boost Akron, i would of put up the finnished form of the culture of Akron page and fought to keep the info you removed from it on there instead of leaving stress minor. BTW, just like grafiti is a culture (sub-culture) marble playing and collectng can be too. The fact that zipper is a word and created in Akron makes it able to be in an Akron culture literature section.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

When you studied literature in school, what did you study? Galoshes? No. You studied books, because that's what literature is. Books, stories and the like. Not brand names. Are Kleenex or Xerox literature because people use the brand names as common words? No, they are marketing terms. Aspirin is another one. It also used to be a brand name, but it is hardly literature. And movies aren't literature either.--Beirne (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I forget alot about school because most of it dosent help in m everyday life. Kleenex is a type of tissue, Xerox is a global document management company, zipper is more like tissue plus those words cant be used as verbs, as in zip. I find literature to be vocabulary and text within a book, those movies were based on the books.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you ever xeroxed a document? Regarding literature, zipper doesn't even meet your definition, as the word came from galoshes, not vocabulary or text from a book. And if your point is that the word is used in books, then that turns every field of knowledge into literature, because each area has it's own special vocabulary that makes it into books. Like culture, the word literature is now being expanded so far as to be meaningless. And it doesn't matter if the movies were based on books. Your own words refer to the sentence being used in the movies, not the books, so the information belongs in the movie section, assuming that it belongs at all since it is so obscure.--Beirne (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No...i think? (i gotta read it) Im gettng at the point that it is a "termincal noun" which makes it vocabulary, the list you gave are more like pronouns. This conversation is now being expanded so far as to be meaningless. Well the article dosent say movies.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Clever. The article said movies before and now says books. The problem is, I don't know for sure that the sentence was in the books, so I added a citation request. Your changes to the zipper part don't make it any more literary. --Beirne (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If something so simple can be called clever then thanks i guess. All you had to do is actually check each edit instead of assuming in blind rage. A citation should be hard to come since it is quote from a book, but aside from renting one of those books myself from the library, http://www.eeggs.com/items/3044.html, that should be proof enough. Trust me it is.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What rage? It said "movies" this morning, and since you don't describe your changes most of the time I missed the switch to "books" since then. Regarding the link, someone's comment on a web page is not a valid source. --Beirne (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The rage that you are gong through. At many times you havent described your edits but i dont think i make that mistake. Regarding your reply, i figured you would resort to that *valid excuse.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at my contribution history. You will see I comment every change to the articles, I just leave out comments on the discussion because what I say there stands on its own. Now look at your contributions. Your comments for changes are rare, including the one where you changed "movies" to "books". --Beirne (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt change the fact it's your responsibilty to use common sense and not make those types of avoidable mistakes, as i and others do.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Needful Things

I've added a Citation needed template to the mention of the book in the literature section. According to the article the sentence "Rome wasn't built in a day, nor Akron, Ohio, for that matter." is in that book, but searching separately for "Rome" and "Akron" in Amazon I couldn't find the sentence. --Beirne (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Needful Things has been removed. I've gone ahead and removed the whole entry about the sentence, though. The In Popular Culture article admits the difficulty in determining what content of that sort is valid, but they are clear about one thing: "In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone.". The sentence "Rome wasn't built in a day, nor Akron, Ohio, for that matter" tells the reader absolutely nothing about Akron and pretty much any city name could be used in its place in the sentence. The article is not a concordance, it is an encyclopedia article meant to impart knowledge about the city. --Beirne (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the line about "Rome wasn't built in a day, nor Akron, Ohio, for that matter." back out. I'm following Wiki guidelines on in popular culture material, which says "In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone.". In the comment where my removal was reverted, it said that this says something about Akron. It actually says nothing about Akron, as no city was built in a day. Any city could replace Akron in the sentence and it would have the same meaning. --Beirne (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and took the sentence back out. There has been no reply to the discussion I started here on the talk page, so having made my best effort to start a discussion the proper way I have removed the sentence. --Beirne (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; the more famous quote is simply "Rome wasn't built in a day" so using Akron is interesting, but the full quote itself is not significant. Does that book mention Akron in any other way? If not, it really shouldn't be included at all. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Stand just has one paragraph about Akron aside from the Rome quote, and it refers to a couple of the characters going there during with an army detachment during a flu outbreak to keep order. It says more about the detachment than Akron. Needful Things, the other book mentioned about Akron, has five mentions of the city, but all they say is that Leland Gaunt was from there. Like the Rome quote, none of these mentions of Akron say anything about Akron itself and any city name could be substituted without any problem. The King books should not be mentioned in this article. --Beirne (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Accent

Accent is encyclopedic due to the fact it has articles on it and a featured article (New York City) has a section on it. Also i assumed the map on the page would cleary cover citing, also i have found a reference for it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

New York has a noted accent that is identifiable with the city (see New York dialect), so that really doesn't apply here as Akron does not have a unique accent different from the rest of Ohio or even the general region. A few local words like devilstrip (which IS used outside Akron) does not constitute an "accent" or even a significant variant of the English language (especially since there are local variants of tree lawn all over the world). Remember, the presence of a particular section on a given city page does not mean every city article has to have an identical section, even if that article is a Featured Article. Many city articles have sections that are unique to that city and should not be considered a template. Please read WP:USCITY for the general guideline. In any case, do not add sections or any info into any article without also including reliable sources at the same time. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, i can tell you (but not computerically prove unless through songs) that Akron and Cleveland (especially in the black community) sound different. The sectons also points out that Akron's dialect history is from a different region. Also all dialects listed state the difference between Akron and what may not be found in other city or states.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused: are you debating the inclusion of the "spoken dialect" section, or are you debating its contents? Aside from the odd "which was studied" bit in the first line, I think that the first paragraph is quite appropriate: scholars have studied and published on areas of northeastern Ohio that include Akron, and speech is a significant part of the culture of an area. However, the unsourced "localisms" sentences really are more of trivia and don't belong. Moreover, this subsection shouldn't be in the same section as "popular culture" — such a section is generally meant to include references to Akron or Akron-related subjects in the media, not to include bits on the culture of the city itself. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus there is a huge difference between an actual dialect and an accent and between a dialect and "localisms". Do people in Akron say a significant amount of words differently than those in the region? Growing up here I haven't noticed that. The difference between Cleveland and Akron to me represents more of a slight Cleveland accent (very nasal on short "a" sounds like "class" and "family" from my experience) over an Akron accent. Akron seems to follow standard midwestern like most of the areas of Northeast Ohio. A dialect would be like Pittsburgh English where words are pronounced with a stark difference from anywhere else and there are a number of noted localisms (like "Yinz" and "Yunz"). "Devilstrip" is a localism, but is not unique just to Akron; it is quite common in the region too. But that alone does not constitute a dialect or an accent. Added to that the fact that tree lawn has a significant amount of local versions across the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada. It's so widespread, there is no "standard" word or phrase for the strip of grass between the street and sidewalk. I agree with Nyttend that most of this is trivia. The only info that should be here should be the sourced info of what dialect of English is most common in Akron; not a section on an alleged Akron accent or dialect. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only one before heard a term for that strip of grass: here in western Ohio, people call it a "boulevard". Funny, the boulevard along my smalltown almost-two-lane residential street doesn't seem like "a wide, multi-lane arterial thoroughfare". I could just as easily add something to my hometown article about boulevards on the streetsides, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Threeblur has tried to retitle the Culture and contemporary life section as Culture and the city in popular culture. In popular culture culture material tends to be a lot of useless trivia, and it should not be sanctioned with a section header. The article is already too long, and should not be made even longer with useless information like the appearance of the word "Akron" in a book. Read WP:IPC. --Beirne (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bern, yes, i did, it should be as is because popular culture is a heading n other articles, and the secton is not too long because it has a "blank and blank"(two item) heading so its aspected, also the culture and contemporary life secton of the featured article New York City is longer than this one.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the New York section is longer. New York is an older city and is signifcantly larger than Akron (NYC population: over 8,000,000; Akron: just over 200,000), not to mention more important and well-known. New York has also been the setting for WAAAAAY more things than Akron, yet it still does not have a list showing every appearance (it would be massive). Do not assume that because the NYC article is this long and has this section that the Akron article should also have one. The size of the city has a lot to do with how large the section is and if it even has one. Comparing New York to Akron is like comparing the Akron article to the Stow, Ohio or Kent, Ohio articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Those facts reall dont matter in a wikipedic case. That is opion more than fact, cause without Akron ever existing alot would be different in todays world. New York also has ALOOOOTTTT of catagories about the movies, books, shows, etc., listing close to every single appearance. I dont assume that. Agreed, but size dosent always do that, Miami is smaller than Akron yet has a larger population, Anchorage is also bigger than New York, perfect examples. Comparing New York to Akron is lke comparing roses of different color, they are both major cities also.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but "in popular culture" lists for New York are in their own articles, not cluttering up the main articles. --Beirne (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not cluttering the page, looks similar to the featured article Cleveland's section.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are the in popular culture references in the culture section of the Cleveland article? --Beirne (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Akron's section is two itemed, half is like New York and half is like Cleveland's.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You said that the pop culture references you've added to the Akron article are like Cleveland's culture section, which doesn't have in pop culture references, so I don't understand your answer. --Beirne (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur, read the top of the page when you edit the Akron article. It says "This page is 101 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.". So the whole article is too long. The last thing we need it "in popular culture" in the section header because that will provide sanction to fill it with all sorts of useless references to Akron in pop culture. And referring to the NYC article, it has no mention of "in popular culture" in the main section of the culture section, just a good description of the culture of the city. The article on the culture of NYC discusses the issue in prose and not list form, saying how the instances portray the city. This is encyclopedic, not just throwing trivia into the article. --Beirne (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no "In popular culture" section in New York City. The closest thing, outside the Culture of New York City (the intro of which reads almost identical to pre-edited Culture of Akron, Ohio), is a list that shows the films New York has been the main setting List of films set in New York City. And yes, this article is far too large and needs subarticles, such as History of Akron, Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many article (yes, featured also) that are over 101 kiobytes long. I didnt say New York had a in popular culture section, i said Toledo and others. Except complaning about the subarticles it needs, hows about making them.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You said "New York also has ALOOOOTTTT of catagories about the movies, books, shows, etc., listing close to every single appearance.", and the only way that sentence would have any relevance is if you were talking about the main article. --Beirne (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the history dosent really need its own page, Kent, Ohio's history seems to be as long if not longer than Akron's, im pretty sure there are other articles with history sections longer than Akron's who dont have their own pages.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cities the size of Akron mostly have a separate article for history and other aspects. Don't forget you have already spun off things like the Rubber Strike of 1936. Kent is a much smaller city than Akron, but even then it could easily have a History of Kent, Ohio article if it needed it. You keep bringing up New York City and Cleveland, yet ignore them when they don't fit your arguments. And using Toledo as an example isn't very good. Again, the title you keep putting in (violating 3RR) is non-standard and awkward. In addition, the intro you have for that section is full of peacock terms and unsourced claims. What about "do not add unsourced information back into an article" do you not understand? If it doesn't have a source and it makes a claim, it has no place here. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rubber Strike of 1936 came from being a short term event that didnt related to the rubber industry more and deserved room outside of a one sentence in Akron history to be explained. If Akron needs one then Kent and other do also, which they arent essential really. Using an article with the section existing on it is a good example. If i violated it, then it was after Bernie and probably you also. I dont know what "peacock terms" are, what about not being able to find source on the internet(as you could not before) and assuming good faith.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at WP:PEACOCK for the definition of peacock terms. --Beirne (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point those terms out so thet can be fixed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article on Peacock terms gives several examples. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

<---I haven't violated any 3RR rule because I haven't undone anything beyond removing unsourced info. Peacock terms are something you need to be familiar with, so see WP:PEACOCK. This article has been said to have quite a few, not to mention unsourced claims like being "diverse" (according to who??) and having "one of the best gay communities" (again, according to who??). Peacock terms are along the same line as boosterism. As far as WP:AGF the instance you are referring to is when I used a source from a video that you couldn't see yourself. You are adding information that doesn't have any sources at all; *huge* difference. It would be one thing if your info was coming from a book in print (as opposed to online) that you properly sourced; but you don't even have that yet you continue to add information. If it doesn't have a source, WP:AGF doesn't mean to assume a source may come in the future. AGF simply means I don't attack you for adding it and assume you did it for good but don't understand Wikipedia policies. Really, the Kent, Ohio article is largely irrelevant here. It is nowhere near as long as this article, so it's not really a matter of having similar lengths to the respective history sections, but more in how long the entire article is. History was one example of an article that could be created as opposed to endlessly expanding this article with cruft and trivia which is what is and has been happening. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Like what info do you see like that now so it can be fixed? I think the various racial immigrant groups and ethnic festivals held in Akron say it's diverse. Where does it say "one of the best gay communities"?????? Jon you are dismantling your own credibility.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Before you accuse people of "dismantling their own credibility" perhaps you should recall the very words you typed and would later restore via a reversion. The reason they aren't there anymore is because I removed them as unsourced. It was the sentence mentioning the hosting of part of the 2014 Gay Games and Highland Square (which really have nothing to do with each other besides the gay aspect). As for diverse, diverse is a relative term, so coming to that conclusion on your own is original research and also a Point of view problem. There are actual definitions of what makes something "diverse" (it has to have a certain percentage of minorities and ethnic groups for example) so unless you have an outside source that calls Akron diverse, it can't be in there. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jon, since i did infact put "one of the best gay communities" show me the exact revision it was when i did it. Diverse http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diverse can mean alot of things, but i will remove for now.--Threeblur0 ([[User

talk:Threeblur0|talk]]) 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion which restored it. "...the Highland Square neighborhood of Akron, is conisiderred to be one of America's gay communities." This would need a source and shouldn't be in the article without one. As for diverse, you would still need a source, since as I said, diverse is a relative term. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the quote was "one of the best gay communities" as you stated earler above (losng your credibility and close to lying). Simply clicking on the link that says gay community, you will find Highland Square listed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't talk to much about credibility, threeblur. Remember saying this yesterday about the Stephen King quote that turned out not to be in the book you said it was? "A citation should be hard to come since it is quote from a book, but aside from renting one of those books myself from the library, http://www.eeggs.com/items/3044.html, that should be proof enough. Trust me it is". And you told me to trust you. --Beirne (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you wouldnt but i would Bern. I rented The Stand from the library after seeing all parts of the movie on Scifi. Yes, and you should trust me as i told you...--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't in Needful Things, though, the other book you said it was in. --Beirne (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing i recall doing is believing a bad reference, can you show me where i said that.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there any good reason for having a "Sports" header immediately above a "Current Sports teams" header, when they're both three-equals-signs headers? This effectively means that there's a totally empty "Sports" section. Any objections to removing the "current" header? Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It was put like that to resemble Cleveland's but i see it has a sports seealso tag under it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Break for convenience

There's no need to have everything like a featured article simply because the FA does it that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt catch this until a moment ago cause the page is so long and i stroll rush. I understand what you are saying, but i thought the goal of Wikipedia was to get all suitable knowledge and have it explained perfectly (featured article status) so i used those as building blocks to start off of.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the page for a day due to the edit warring that's going on here. It looks like several parties have violated 3RR, but I thought full protection to be a better solution than blocking everyone involved. FYI, I was asked to come over here by Jon Ridinger, but I didn't start looking into the various versions of the article or reading the discussion until after I protected the page — I protected the revision that I did because it was the current one when I decided that protection was needed, not because of my opinions on its validity. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Weight

It seems to me that much of the popular culture material added repeatedly violates WP:WEIGHT. A whole section on the Grassman? Why not just one sentence (if that)? Just because something exists in Akron, does not mean it has to be included in this article. There is a reason we are called editors.

Just because Akron is mentioned in a book or movie does not mean that that has to also be mentioned here. The article is drowning in a sea of trivia - while it seems to me that everyone was violating or near to breaking WP:3RR, I think that those removing the trivia and cruft were more in the spirit of the WP:MOS than the edits adding it or adding it back in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The book and movie sections were made to fall in form with Cleveland's and New York's which i used as starting blocks, the problem is that they have catagories and seealsos that require time and research to make, i put the info in that section where it most fits.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't always need to be here in an unfinished state. Better to put together the research for the other articles and link to them from here than to overwhelm this article with tons of trivia. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know alot of it looks trivial in the section, but that happened due to trying to fuse culture with popular culture as i thought would be acceptable. And everytime i would try to take time and fix, info would be removed without talk and i would have to go discuss and never get around to the work.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, most popular culture stuff simply doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Grassman was discussed above and kept due to it being similar to New Jersey's section on the Jersy Devil.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the only one here who wants to keep it, as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my wording made it sound like i cam to a consensus, but mainly it 's been me and the other to editors going back and fourth. It will start with editor Bernie coming along after i make edits and just start undoing and removing data without using the talkpage, then i would stmble upon it later and get into minor edit wars with him which half the times go to the talkpage where we start discussing it then he stops before its finished, then comes along the next day and does the same thing, its hard to point out that this is indeed fact and true due to the revision being made so quick and mixed together. Jon on the other hand is what i would deem a "good editor" overall but he just has his times where he dosent look like it, examples are where he says that i said something (puttng words in my mouth, baring false witness, and throwing the dscussion off center), ganging up (he dosent really start it as much as Bernie, but kinda gets forced into cause Bernie at times will do nothing while im editing and he is on until he sees me and Jon having conflicting thoughts). I know there is a very good chance that im making mistakes at times, but its hard to really notice when the same two editors are the only ones who bring it to my attention who have been acting as i stated above. I wanted to at times invite people as Jon did but thought it would be consderred mailing people to gang up and come to a consensus, which i was told by Jon is not allowed far earlier in our history of discussing edits.--Threeblur0 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any requirement that I consult with someone before removing material. I'm following Wikipedia:Be bold. I always comment my article changes and start a discussion if my deletion then gets reverted. It's hard to come to a consensus with someone who says that rubber and polymer development are culture or throws personal accusations in the middle of the discussion. --Beirne (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If something is unsourced or unencyclopedic, I will put that in the edit summary when I remove it just as Beirne has. No discussion needed. The fact that we both have to constantly explain the same Wikipedia policies over and over and over has gotten pretty old. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur, please stop characterising other editors as "good" or "bad". Sometimes it's appropriate to add a {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}}, but unreferenced matter is always problematic, and unencyclopedic stuff simply doesn't belong, with or without a source. If I had a comprehensive Akron-area phone book, I could post Jon's phone number on his hometown article, and it would be supported with a citation to a reliable source, but there's no good reason to do that. If material doesn't fit, you must acquit remove speedily. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon, you also removed referenced material by me both with and seperate of unreferenced material more than once, just as Bernie did. That's not a fact, but it is a fact that you need to re-read the rules because you clearly broke the 3rr rule.

Nyttend, i didnt mean it as in good and evil, i meant as in skilled. I dont have problems with that and understood it, seeing unreferenced data on both featured and regular pages led me to think that if i knew it was true that it would be ok, but im sure thats not how it is now. Both fitting and non-ftting material was removed by the editors, i thought when data is disputed it should be talked out on the talk page.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur we all broke 3RR as we all lost count. Never said anything different. Any referenced material I removed you added was removed under "unencyclopedic". Again, as others have said, just because something has a reference, even a valid one, does not mean it belongs here. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we all broke it, i didnt lose count though, you did for a fact because you told me earlier that you didnt brake it(turned out to be a lie and loss of more credibility). Just because you say its "unencyclopedic" does not mean it's fact, we use talkpages to express each others' opinion to find fact.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

People get along better and the process is a lot smoother when you assume good faith and not accuse another editor of lying. --Beirne (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible to make a mistake — it's not lying every time you miscount and base a statement on that. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<----When I first mentioned 3RR to you, I had not broken it yet; and if you didn't lose count, you know you were likely at or over 3RR before I even showed up, so why keep doing it? You question others credibility, yet that very action shows lack of integrity to me if indeed you were keeping a count. I was not keeping an exact count, though once I noticed I had likely hit 3 or gone over, that is when I stopped and asked for assistance from other experienced editors; Beirne did the same in asking me. It wasn't to get them to do what I wanted, but to provide additional insights and opinions as administrators I know I can trust to be fair and who understand policies and standards.

Next, simply removing info with a valid rationale is not a reversion; it's a standard edit. Reversion is basically using the "undo" option or doing the equivalent of "undo" manually as far as I understand it (so that the edits go back and forth). Further, if I feel something is unencyclopedic based on Wikipedia policies, standards, and my own experience editing, no, I don't need to include an explanation on the talk page every time I remove it (though I frequently do out of courtesy as does Beirne). It's called being bold. The burden of inclusion falls on the person who added the info (Why should it stay? Why is it needed? What does it add to the article?), not on the person questioning its inclusion, especially when it's unsourced or has an unreliable source or sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd try something different, so I went through the culture parts of the culture section and marked up everything I could find that needed fixing. Just because I marked something with a template does not mean that I think it should be in the article, but I wanted to make it clear how much work is needed in the section. I only wish there were more templates for bad content, like {{irrelevant}} for a sentence and {{insignificant}}. Then I would have tagged even more. --Beirne (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Enterprise was not stored at the airdock

There is a statement saying that the Enterprise from Star Trek was stored in the Goodyear Airdock. For one thing, it hasn't been the Goodyear Airdock since 1987. More importantly, according the source[3], which is dubious to begin with, it was the shuttlecraft, not the Enterprise.--Beirne (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was true and had a reliable source, it's pure trivia. This does not help people understand Akron, Ohio any better or even the Airdock. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Beirne (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. --Beirne (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Akron Airship Historical Center does not exist

The Akron Airship Historical Center mentioned in the museum section appears to be a dream of some people in Akron and does not yet exist according to its web page[4]. --Beirne (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Akron not lifelong home of Don Bendell

According to the article on Don Bendell he lives in Colorado, making the statement that Akron is his lifelong home dubious. Another Wikipedia article is not authoritative, but it highlights that verification is needed. --Beirne (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article can be authoritative if the statement it has is backed up by a reliable source. Why do I feel like I keep hearing these same statements about dubious claims and needing verification over and over and over here? What about including reliable sources is so diffcult? The argument of "I'm looking for them" or "will put them in later" doesn't fly here or in any article. If they can't be included with the info, the info shouldn't be added at all (though having a source, even a reliable one, is no guarantee the info is encyclopedic). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources are real important. I've just added a bunch of citation request and other templates because I have seen enough incorrect information written that I'm not assuming things I don't know to be true to be true. --Beirne (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Adrienne Miller appears to be from suburban Akron, not Akron

The Wikipedia article on Adrienne Miller says her parents lived in suburban Akron, not Akron. --Beirne (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Standard Midwestern dialect

The dialect section has the statement "Around the Great Lakes, many people speak what is commonly known as Standard Midwestern dialect.", but it is unclear what this has to do with Akron since two sentences previous it says that Inland is expected when North Midland is what is spoken. --Beirne (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress stage

I added some references where they were needed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The one for The Instructor says the the movie was filmed in Akron, not that Akron is the setting for the movie. Also, please refrain from making hostile comments in your edit summaries like: "fixed Bernie's mistake, could you try reading over your work so not to make significant erros such as that". It is supposed to be about the content, not the person. And the only mistake was to leave a dangling left bracket. --Beirne (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hostile? If, anything i thought it was similar to what you and Jon do when commenting about me. Im sorry but i cant help t cause it contradicts with your "I want the Akron article to be as correct as possible" persona.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When do I put your name in the comments? --Beirne (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh i forgot, you put "Threeblur".--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the edit comments. I only use it on the talk page when I need to make clear whose edits or discussion I'm referring to. --Beirne (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah same here.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not same here for you. Look up a few lines at the quote I took from your edit comment this morning. --Beirne (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, i rather you repoint it out and be clear and not cause confusion.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsfMRbHkKCM In the movie, possibly book too, people ask Gaunt where he is from and he replies Akron, Ohio.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell me how many seconds in he said Akron, Ohio? All I heard was "Ohio". --Beirne (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, wrong trailer selected, i cant find specific, but if you buy the movie or watch youtube or tv, he is sitting at a table when the officers asks him we he is from, also http://books.google.com/books?id=d75KXLXsqpIC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=leland+gaunt+akron+ohio&source=bl&ots=JTTUFdPRBS&sig=8u09Ur54hlPTT4SEtqRsqklaFFY&hl=en&ei=ojAyS96VHobAlAenwpioBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=leland%20gaunt%20akron%20ohio&f=false --Threeblur0 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the book does not count as a source for the movie, so I have put in a Failed Verification template. Also, it is unclear if Akron plays enough of a part in the movie to be significant. --Beirne (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Falk#Early_films His page says he plays as harry spears.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't count as a source, and I'm not going to go find his page. --Beirne (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/All-Marbles-VHS-Peter-Falk/dp/B00000F22V see his face on the cover and his name mentoned on the link?--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know Peter Falk was in the movie, the issue is whether it is set in Akron. --Beirne (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, its a movie that names real places and goes to them, also in the movie (that i cant find on the web) shows the Goodyear factories and them wrestling at the Downtown Akron arena.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081964/ --Threeblur0 (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That may work, since some of the characters are described as being people in Akron. --Beirne (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, i put it up.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

-

Gay community

Are these pages proof enough for the gay community statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay_villages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron_neighborhoods#Highland_Square http://www.highlandsquare.org/rosemary.php?ppage=3 http://www.rubberbuzz.com/queer/ --Threeblur0 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are a lot of gays in the Highland Square area. Saying "conisiderred to be one of America's gay communities" is a strange way to say it. One would expect an adjective between "America's" and "gay". Otherwise the wording is redundant, as it is obvious that Highland Square is in America. The other problem with the sentence is that it parses out to say that part of the Gay Games will be held in Highland Square. --Beirne (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What ever and i will fix.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Highland Square is a gay neighborhood; the issue is what sources have named it or consider it one of American's best gay communities as the section currently claims and which I have removed at least twice. It may be true, but until it has a valid source, again, it shouldn't be in the article. It also connects the 2014 Gay Games, which have nothing to do with Highland Square. Cleveland was selected as the host and Akron is hosting a few events simply because it is close to Cleveland, not because of Highland Square. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg I thought this map showing Akron in the shaded area, along with the reference i gave that says northern cities such [example list] would be enough for proof, i know the reference dosent say Akron specifically but why would it name every single northern city?(theres alot not named that were affected)--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to tell if the map includes Akron or not, plus Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. If the article does not name Akron, then it is unknown whether Akron is included in the shift or not. If Akron is to be included because it is near Cleveland, then why not Canton, and then why not New Philadelphia? --Beirne (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you were from Akron and loved it like you said, then you know the location is within the shade, if the map was made using Wikipedia then i guess your right. I thought the connecting information and the fact that Akron is a northern city would clearify. I dont know you tell me?--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are making this personal again. Stick to discussion of the content. The map is roughly drawn and Akron is near the edge so I don't want to make assumptions. I don't know what you mean by "connecting information", and Columbus, Ohio is also a northern city and it is not included in the area of the shift, so being a northern city isn't enough. --Beirne (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is another section that really shouldn't be that large anyway. All that needs to be mentioned is what dialect Akron generally falls into. If it's unclear based on the sources, then it simply means we should wait to put something in the article about it. Connecting information is tricky: see WP:SYN. As an editor, you really shouldn't be connecting any info that doesn't already have a clear connection in the sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I took out the part about Southern and African-American dialect again. The source is a thesis, which should be OK, but the document is about migration, not language. Inferring things about language is original research, which is not allowed. --Beirne (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-

Music contributions

For the Akron accessed for music statement, can i put a reference for an album by a mainstream artist that was recorded in the city?--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. It might make more sense if the phrase is reworded when adding the reference, but may also be trivial. --Beirne (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I put because New York's had it and i knew albums were created here.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is unusual and largely inaccurate to say Akron has been "accessed" because the section talks about musicians from Akron rather than the music industry coming to Akron for major developments. It would be one thing if a major studio or recording label were located in Akron or a major style of music developed in Akron, but so far the only information I have seen has been specific artists who are from Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Movies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQmQX79HMnQ In this part or part 1 forsure, it says headed down Main Street and the poilce badges say Akron.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to watch that much youtube. Tell me which one and how many seconds in. Not that this means much. It was a low-budget movie and they may not have cared about those details. It would be more useful to hear them talk about being in Akron. Of course, the whole mention of the movie could be considered trivial, as no one but Akronites will have heard of the movie. --Beirne (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But you have to time focus on this page being fully correct so much. If you watch the more movie, they make alot of references to the city like going places, also it shows downtown, not just a grassy or street scene that could be mistaken for another place. "no one but Akronites will have heard of the movie" (opinion, false statement matter fact) the movie was released country-wide if not in other countries also.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof on these items is yours. It is not up to me to watch 15-20 minutes of film to prove a point you are trying to make. And just because it shows Akron does not mean that the movie was set there. For example, lots of TV shows are filmed in Vancouver that are set in other cities. The movie may well be set in Akron but Wikipedia requires references for things that are non-obvious, and this isn't obvious. And while the movie was released in the US, Greece, and Finland, it didn't do enough box office to have numbers in IMDB[5], so it is unlikely that much of anyone has heard of it outside of Akron, and I'm not sure most Akronites have heard of it. --Beirne (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0187993/ try that IMDB link, so now it's "so it is unlikely that much of anyone has heard of it outside of Akron"?, really im care more about fact than what you think, fact is the movie is unavailable on the web so im resorting to Jon's technique and it shows Akron polic badges (any budget movie would cut that out if it wasnt meant to be there) and it names a street in Akron (Main St), lets see if anyone else on Wikipedia thinks this is not proof enough.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My "technique" was using a Cite Video template since I have the video in question and I linked to the episode summary. In the video, Kent was verbally mentioned ("we sent a crew to Kent, Ohio") and shown. It's the same as citing from a book that is in print only. Again, these kinds of facts are minor at best, though. Really, unless it's cited in actual dialogue and/or in the film summary, using police badges that are barely visible is stretching sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok give me one good reason why they wouldnt use fake badges (that are highly possible to get), also why would the dispatcher say "head south north on Main St while theres an actual Main St in Akron existing if it is suppose to be a different place? This "using police badges that are barely visible is stretching sources" is an example why i dont take you seriously anymore.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are Main Streets in lots of cities. And once again you are making things personal, which just makes this whole process worse. --Beirne (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point is, if it isn't easily visible and you have to watch it closely, it's not much of a help as a source. For all we know the movie found a bunch of old Akron police uniforms. Using "Main Street" in dialogue doesn't count as a source. Almost every city in the US has a Main Street and many have a north-south version just like Akron. That tells us nothing about where something takes place. And once again, you are taking this to a personal level rather than sticking to the issues. If you don't take me seriously that's great, but completely irrelevant. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the movie, they actually show them on Main St while they say it, as if the movie was set in Akron. Also, every city dosent have a firestone park or summit lake.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<-----If you have something specific and indisputable that definitively shows the movie is set in Akron, then go for it, provided this is something that actually needs to be in the article (i.e. isn't trivia). I would even use the "quote" feature in the citation template. Being on Main Street and saying that in the movie does not prove it's in Akron; Firestone Park is closer, but "Firestone" is not unique to Akron (though I agree it's most likely in Akron, but could also simply mean a writer was from Akron and used the name). Summit Lake is likely more common than you may think since there are summits and lakes all over the place. Again, the issue is that the source is reliable and doesn't require investigation to determine that it is, in fact, in Akron. For the most part, this is pretty low on importance in the article anyway. This was not a major movie and I agree with Beirne this is more likely trivia than anything. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Literature

Nouns are a part of literature, the act of creating a noun is a part of literature also, an example is knickerbockers on NYC's culture page.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The word knickerbocker came from a book, which is literature. Zipper came from galoshes made by Goodrich, and galoshes are not literature. --Beirne (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still literature due to the fact it added additional definitions to zip.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus this

Literature is the art of written works. Literally translated, the word means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter), and therefore the academic study of literature is known as Letters (as in the phrase "Arts and Letters") makes it part of literature.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again Threeblur your arguments are pretty weak here. Literature is referring to literary works (books mostly) and famous authors, not word definitions. Your definition above does not indicate that the word Zipper is a literary contribution. On top of that there is no source I have seen that Goodrich invented the word "zipper"; they simply trademarked it. Remember, just because New York's article does something does not mean it has to or even should be replicated here even though the NY article is FA class. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Latin for the word is irrelevant, it's what the word means in English, and in English it refers to books and stories, not marketing terms. Having said that, a brand name doesn't even rise to the level of a letter. --Beirne (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Literature, literally translated means "acquaintance with letters" so how isnt the phrase "zipper" not such, also http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zipper --Threeblur0 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's taking it just a bit too far. Goodrich trademarking Zipper did not revolutionize the English language. Huge difference between a literary contribution and a trademark (and no evidence Goodrich invented the term as I said). --JonRidinger (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation from Latin is irrelevant. We are writing in English. And even then letters implies writing that is a lot longer than one word. --Beirne (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How is adding definitions to a word not a literary contribution?--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it didn't come from literature, it came from marketing. Otherwise that would turn everything into literature as words are created from all sorts of sources, generally not literary. --Beirne (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats like saying i have to be from Africa to donate to Africa, it dosent matter, it's adding of definitions relate to literature. There is a difference between the phrase zipper and other words you may be thinking about.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the literature section is for literary accomplishments that have their origin in literature from Akron. Zipper is an accident that came from a brand name, not from a literary source. And BTW, zipper is not a phrase, it is a word. --Beirne (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, zipper also appears in the City of Invention section, so there is no need for it to show up twice in the same article. --Beirne (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No your just changing your point again, fact is definitions are literature related. BTW, zip can be a phrase depending on how its used.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm making the same point I've made all along, brand names for galoshes are not literature, they are marketing terms. As well as the larger point, which is that the items in the culture section should deal with culture that comes from Akron, not science or marketing. --Beirne (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, zipper is mentioned/explained in a different way, alot of highlighted items do that in other pages.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be explained no more than once in the article. Including it twice does not add anything. --Beirne (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<---Beirne is right that it only needs to be mentioned once in the article. Since it is already mentioned in the Invention section, mentioning it again just clutters the article with redundant information. That's on top of the fact that "Zipper" as trademarked by Goodrich is not the definition of "zipper" today. And no, this really doesn't have anything to do with the culture of Akron; it's more part of its history, especially since Goodrich isn't even in Akron anymore. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on Zipper for two reasons: first, as we discussed here, Goodrich trademarking the name Zipper is not a literary contribution by the city of Akron; if anything it would be in the history section here (a brief mention if at all) and most certainly in the Zipper article, Goodrich, and even the Akron Zips. Zipper is much the same as Kleenex, Xerox, Band-aid, etc.; proper, trademarked names that became common (though in a slightly different name). Second, the source said nothing about the Akron Zips nickname. As far as I have read (would need to find the source again) the University officially shortened the name to Zips (no longer the Zippers), so it's a matter of trivia. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

marbles, marbles, marbles

The invention of mass-produced marbles is mentioned at least three times in the article. Might not once be enough? --Beirne (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Back from Christmas

Im back and decided not to dive into the comments (too confusing and i dont have time) and have started a major remake of the page and will include other edits that editors made to the shown page when complete.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See this is where problems develop when you don't take time to read the comments here or selectively ignore them. You miss things that have already been discussed/explained and then we end up having to explain them again and again. If you really want this article to be a good article, it's going to take some time and effort on your part as well as others. If you have time to "start a major remake" then you have time to catch up on the comments. Very little has been added in the two days you missed. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur, all you have to do is show the history for the talk page and select the last comment you saw before Christmas and the latest one. Then you can get a nice diff that shows everything that was written. --Beirne (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

City of Invention

As far as I can see "City of Invention" is a self-proclaimed slogan/nickname by the city of Akron since it appears on their own seal. It obviously refers to the history of the many inventions from Akron, but also to Akron being the home of the Inventors Hall of Fame. Make sure the sources actually state the very facts they claim to be supporting. For instance, the first space suits were not invented in Akron; they were already invented somewhere else and Goodrich was ended up being the company to manufacture them by winning the bid according to the source provided here and at Space suit. There is quite a difference between manufacturing something and inventing something. And while I'm glad to see some sources, just make sure they can all pass WP:RS, meaning they aren't just from some tourist website or a city promotion site. Last, take the time to use citation templates and avoid simply rushing to put info and sources in. It is not the end of the world if a "citation needed" template or a "Ref improve" tag is up for a few extra minutes. And no, it wasn't "Beirne's tag", he correctly added the tag per Wikipedia policy for a section that lacked sufficient sources. Please refrain from continually making this personal in comments and edit summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, while the Goodrich items are now all referenced, nothing says they were created in Akron, putting the relevance of the sentence into question. While I'm pretty sure the space suits were made in Akron, I don't know about the other things and outsiders would want proof on the space suits. --Beirne (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Threeblur's unexplained change to the Goodrich space suit sentence. The documentation is not clear that they created the first one and what their part was in the process. --Beirne (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the about.com article and changed the wording to give Goodrich credit for Project Mercury space suits based on having submitted their design and winning a competion. --Beirne (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The City of Invention section seems to be a way to bolster a marketing title created by the city itself. I don't have a problem mentioning important inventions from Akron but the paragraph is structured to support Akron's title for itself, which is not the business of Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodyear doesn't claim to have invented those things

The article has a long list of Goodyear "inventions", but looking at the source it says "Major inventions by Goodyear's scientists and technicians have been used not only in tyres and automotive products, but also in artificial hearts and joints, adhesives, artificial turf for playgrounds and food packaging, to name only a few." Goodyear inventions were used in those things, Goodyear did not invent them. And once again, the connection to Akron isn't clear even if the wording is fixed. Nothing says where the items were invented, and marketing blurbs really shouldn't count as sources anyhow. --Beirne (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing i can tell you for a fact is true is the joints part, i saw that at the rubber museum, alo to answer your above statements, looking back will only make advancing more difficult so i chose not to for good reason, also

http://www.deaftoday.com/v3/archives/2005/08/deaf_couples_st.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ordinary+people:+why+the+disabled+aren't+so+different-a018844579

http://www.essaysamples.net/show_essay/100239.html

for my next edit if a dscussion starts. --Threeblur0 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to go by what is documented, and while the list of Goodyear items was lifted from their page almost verbatim, the critical change was when Goodyear became the inventor of the heart, joint, etc. I will take the sentence out of the article. Regarding the deaf, that may fit in the article about Goodyear but in relation to Akron it is just trivia. The last link to essaysamples.net does not count as a source as it has no author or other information associated with it. It is just anonymous words as far as I can tell. --Beirne (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, in relaton it is a nick name just like NYC's and since the deaf came to Akron, it's not trivial.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the essaysamples.net site is an unreliable source. It is just anonymous essays for students who cheat to buy to hand in. I have marked the source as unreliable in the article. And the nickname is real obscure and historical and doesn't fit in the article. It does not rise to the level of The Big Apple, so the comparison with NYC does not work. --Beirne (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So what if you think its "real obscure", as for historical, alot of nicknames on Wikipeda are and alot dont even have references, its rise to the level of other nicknames listed, if not surpassing, The City That Never Sleeps.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is bad practice on other Wikipedia articles does not make it right in the Akron article. I googled for "Crossroads of the Deaf" and got three hits, period. So I'd say that qualifies for obscure. Plus, I've heard of "The City That Never Sleeps" for NYC, but have never heard of the "Crossroads of the Deaf" for Akron, and I doubt many others have either. --Beirne (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Didnt say that. Is Google some sort of ultimate obscurity meter? Plus, i never heard "The city so nice they named it twice" until Wikipedia, and i ask my grandmother moments ago if she heard of the nickname ever and she said way back and knew/would greet deaf people who worked there. It dosent matter what you doubt.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Google is a pretty good obscurity meter. Think of all the hits you usually get when you look for something. I've heard "The city so nice they named it twice" lots of times, and it gets around 72,500 hits on Google. Also, "The City That Never Sleeps" gets 43,600,000 hits, so I'd say the three for "Crossroads of the Deaf" makes it pretty obscure. --Beirne (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Facts are, it's a known nickname and referenced, related to the artcile, thus fit for the article.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just because something is a fact of some sort does not make it suitable for the article. Otherwise everything in the newspaper every day would be material for the article. --Beirne (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Google is not an ends-all meter, but it can give us an idea. Comparing this to "The City that Never Sleeps" is weak because I have seen that phrase in several published works (including one I own). We've had this discussion about what qualifies as a recognized, established nickname several times. A few references here and there do not constitute a well-known or established nickname regardless of what other Wikipedia articles have. And yes, New York has a LOT of nicknames and many of them are known and referenced; that does not mean Akron also does. Basically for Akron it's the "Rubber City", "Rubber Capital (of the world)" and "City of Invention". I'd say the Rubber Capital is really no longer a valid nickname since only Goodyear is still here, but Rubber City is used all the time. I've never heard "Crossroads of the Deaf" for Akron nor have I seen it used in print. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure some where in an 'about deaf people' or 'goodyear history' book, you'll find it. Never said that. I'd say it still is, read the cleveland talk section about mistake on the lake. Same for City so nice they named it twice Jon.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you find it more places. Until then it is obscure history, and it may well be afterwards, as no one uses the name anymore. And I know all about the Mistake on the Lake discussion, as I opposed its place in the article as a nickname for the city. The thing is, Mistake on the Lake gets a lot more use than Crossroads of the Deaf, so once again the comparison with another city's article does not work. --Beirne (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

<----The nickname section is for established current nicknames. "Mistake on the Lake" is irrelevant here because it is still used to identify Cleveland and can be referenced in recent publications. The debate on the Cleveland talk page is whether it should be included in the intro because it is a negative nickname. We would likely have the same debate here if "Methron" and "Crakron" were published nicknames that could be referenced outside of everyday speech.

In reading the source provided, it implies "Crossroads of the Deaf" was a past nickname. Nowhere does it indicate it is common nickname today. "When the Heupels moved to Akron after World War I, this was the fastest growing city in the United States. Because the rubber companies were especially open to hiring deaf workers, the Rubber City earned another nickname: "Crossroads of the Deaf." In those years, Akron was believed to have the largest hearing-impaired population in the country." We know Akron is no longer the fastest-growing city, nor does it have much of any rubber factories left. This appears to have been something that lasted for the early half of the 20th century. And again, one source does not indicate it was (or is) a common, well-established nickname; rather, it establishes it as historical fact. I'd say "Crossroads of the Deaf" would be better suited for the History section than the intro (which is already too long). --JonRidinger (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And it should be the history section of the Goodyear article if at all. --Beirne (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and took out Crossroads of the Deaf. Looking at the Google hits once more, I saw that there are actually only two distinct hits, not three. Two of them duplicate the same content. Since the term comes from the 1920s and says more about Goodyear than Akron I didn't see a place for the name here. --Beirne (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Akron may not have created the school superintendent

The article says: "The concept of a school superintendent, and graded school system in the U.S. began in the city.", based on a list of fast facts about Akron posted by the city. According to an article at stateuniversity.com[6], though, the position was created in Buffalo, NY. I have marked the Akron claim as dubious. --Beirne (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No discussion, so I went ahead and deleted the claim from the article. --Beirne (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the superintendent claim crept back in. I have removed it again. --Beirne (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Stanford Ovshinsky isn't a resident of Akron

Advances by residents like Stanford Ovshinsky are given as the reason that Akron is called the City of Invention. The problem is that while Ovshinsky is from Akron, he moved to the Detroit area years ago and that is where he did his inventing. As far as I know he hasn't moved back to Akron, and I have no idea at all if the nickname was related to him. I'm also a bit concerned at the comment when my removal of his name was reverted. It said: "regaurdless if true, still born of Akron". Truth really matters here. Being born in Akron isn't enough to make the sentence accurate. Unless he is a resident of Akron today and he was documented to be considered a reason for the nickname, the sentence is very misleading. I'm adding another Dubious template. --Beirne (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you read his article, in the first paragraph of the 1950's section(something like that), you will see that he invented and had patents in Akron before moving to detroit.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article talks about one patent he had in Akron. His main work was still in Detroit. --Beirne (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The new wording "from natives and people relating to the city" is awkward and really sounds like it is stretching things to get Ovshinsky in there. Also it still is not proven that Ovshinsky was considered when the term City of Invention was created. I'm restoring the Dubious template. --Beirne (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "people relating to the city" isn't accurate (or correct) anyways since it's referring to people who either invented something while living in Akron (but weren't themselves an Akron native) or lived in Akron and later became notable/famous for an invention somewhere else. I think "natives and residents" would be sufficient or a variant of that. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying it is because of inventions from Akron and having the hall of fame would be fine with me. I think the nickname is a bit of a stretch, but that's beyond the article. We just need to find out something documenting the basis of the name. --Beirne (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Without a source, any reason given for the "City of Invention" is speculation on our part. It is the "official" nickname as it is on the city seal (something that can be sourced) but why it is the nickname is most likely because of the Inventors Hall of Fame (which currently isn't even operating) and the various inventions that have come from Akron. But even then, there is no source as of yet that indicates Akron has produced a significantly greater amount of important inventions than any other city. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at when I said "We just need to find out something documenting the basis of the name" but should have been clearer. --Beirne (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<----No, you were clear...I was just supporting what you were saying. Sources, sources, sources!! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Ovshinsky was put back in. The statement is now technically true, but since he did most of his inventing elsewhere it ends up being another overreaching statement trying to prove the importance of Akron. --Beirne (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I took him out as part of my edit of the mention of the Akron Plan. I removed mention of him because it was out of place. If you're going to have a "such as" statement after saying "numerous" at the beginning of the sentence you need more than one example. Since the rest of the section highlights several inventors and inventions I didn't see why Stanford R. Ovshinsky should be mentioned but nothing about him; the whole "such as..." phrase isn't needed since the section goes through several examples. "Such as..." would be appropriate if there was nothing else in the section or it were a summary of a larger section (like with a "See also" or "Main article" link above it). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After the latest round of changes I'd say Ovshinsky has too much coverage in the article. Since the vast majority of his inventions were done in Detroit, I'd put him in the list of famous Akronites and leave it at that. --Beirne (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. He is important, but as you said, most of his work was done in Detroit or elsewhere. The problem I've seen as I read that section is that it was already too long and I think I may have made it worse by trying to clarify. The section is focusing on the inventions rather than the subject (Akron). We also do not know if Ovshinsky has anything to do with why the city is called the "City of Invention". --JonRidinger (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Section titles

Using the very long "Culture and references to the city in popular culture" seems a bit much to me. I prefer "Culture" or "Culture and contemporary life" if anything. This is based on standards at the Cities Wikiproject guidelines and examples in featured articles. The reasons for the guidelines are to have some uniformity in related articles and to allow for easy navigation. That's not to say we are totally bound by them, but at the same time, there are valid reasons for them. For the Culture section, references in pop culture is more of a subheading than part of the main heading, bearing in mind that references to pop culture should be limited at best. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)