Jump to content

Talk:Houston/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Fourth-largest

Atlanta ISN'T the fourth largest city. Atlanta proper is smaller then Boston, where I live, and we are somewhere in the teens. or twenties. who knows. --Raj Fra 20:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Atlanta is only mentioned once in the Houston article, under airports. Did you mean to claim that Houston isn't the foruth largest, or did you just forget which article you were reading? Psycho Medic 03:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction, Atlanta proper is much larger than Boston. Atlanta proper is 132 square miles, while Boston is only 89 square miles (half of which is water). If you take out the water Boston would fit in Atlanta's Buckhead community with enough space remainging to add Cambridge. And thats only one Atlanta neighborhood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.255.5.251 (talk • contribs) .

Well these days it seems like every discussion leads back to Atlanta, All roads lead to Georgia. To correct the crisis. Atlanta is one of the most disproportionate cities in comparison to its Surrounding communities. Having lived in the city previously, the pop. of Atlanta itself is 417,195 due to white flight and undesirablility of the 1970's and 80's. However the metro area has exploded and is believed to have peaked 5 million and knocking The greater houston area and closing in on the DFW metroplex. Although several new communities are being built with in city limits have sparked new city growth and more projects are planned. Many Texans are finding their new homes in the Atlanta area. With humidity of Houston and the Heat of Dallas and accents thicker than a redneck from Huntsville makes texans feel right at home. A lot less Yanks and Oklahomans to deal with might I add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.142.106 (talk • contribs) .

Incorrect population density

The population density is given as "Density 502.6 mi² / 1,301.8/km²" in page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston". Shouldn't the values be other way around, ie., 502.6/km² and 1,301.8/mi² ?

I dont think so, because the Metric system isnt really used in the U.S. 69.91.106.248 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:thusitha.kodikara: A mile is larger than a kilometer. Infact a mile is approximately equal to 1.6 kilometers. So, a square mile is larger than a square kilometer. Obviously there should be more people in the larger unit of area. But according to the existing entry 1,301.8 people in a square kilometer (which is the smaller unit) and and 502.6 in a square mile (which is the larger unit). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thusitha.kodikara (talk • contribs) .

Shouldn't the population density be closer to 3300 per sq. mi? The population is listed as approximately 2 million in an area of about 600 sq. mi.--72.181.6.130 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just realized in my comment above that the population density in the body of the artcle is correct, but incorrect in the fact box at the top of the article. Sorry for the confusion.--Parkstreetmafia 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Largest city in the American South

It is a fact that Houston is the largest city in the southern united states. much to the dismay of dallasonians or atlantians, this is fact. please refrain from removing said fact in the future. i will never stop re-editing the page to reflect said fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellotone (talk • contribs)

Houston is the largest city west of the gulf of mexico, south of oklahoma, and east of california. However, it's pointless trivia, not interesting, and irrelevant, so it's not included. Dbchip 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Houston can be the largest city west of the Gulf of Mexico etc. as it isn't west of the Gulf of Mexico. It is north of it, though... Geoff97 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 24.175.65.71

RJN: If you feel the need to revert edits which are not easily identifiable as vandalism, please provide an explanation. Thank you. Ufwuct 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Which edits are you talking about? Also, new comments should go at the bottom of the page. I'll move these down for you. · Katefan0 (scribble) 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, the reverts on May 20th, by user 24.175.65.71. I was not aware of any prohibition of editing this article by unregistered users. Am I mistaken? I'm aware of the many contributions has made to this article and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt: I'll assume it was done accidently. I don't think unregistered users should have their changes reverted though. Do you disagree, Katefan? Ufwuct 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edits were very minor. I don't know why you are getting upset over nothing. You placed {{fact}} after two sentences and demanded that the highest elevation of the city is not Houston Heights. I will remove the claim about Houston having the fourth-largest gay population—after Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City. I will remove the sentence saying that the Houston Heights has the highest elevation of the city. I will then include the source for the sentence you put {{fact}} in the Geology subsection. After this is done, consider your edits being restored. —RJN 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
RJN, I 1.) tried to maintain a calm tone, 2.) asked if I was at fault/mistaken, 3.) praised the many contributions you have made to this article (and I would assume that you have put a lot of work into other articles as well), 4.) assumed that what was done was done accidently, 5.) brought the issue to the talk page, and 6.) asked the opinion of another wikipedian (Katefan) before I reinstated my edits. Was this not enough on my part to try to maintain civility? If so, please let me know. Regarding the content of the edits, 2 were requests for sources. I did not want to delete the statements if they in fact correct; I was just fishing for a few sources. One (re: 910 mm) was minor, so I was unsure why it would even be reverted. Regarding the Houston Heights claim, I have seen that in the article for months now but showed (in my mind) restraint in not making an edit until I a.) had the time to disprove it for myself and b.) was able to provide an explanation/source in case the editor who added the claim wondered why it had been deleted, as a courtesy to them. Also, I meant no disrespect to you, RJN. I figured that you usually checked the history page and not the talk page (as this has not had much activity lately) and thought this might be the quickest way to start a dialog without changing the content of the article or starting an edit war over some very minor issues. Please understand that my explanation of a minor edit is not a "demand" and please realize that most people do not like being told they "are getting upset over nothing", whether they are very upset or not at all upset. I look forward to seeing you in other articles and collaborating with you in the future. Hopefully, we can all work on reorganizing this article a bit and possibly(?) reducing the file size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ufwuct (talk • contribs) .

The em dash

The opening sentence has been written like this for almost a year:

"The city covers more than 600 square miles (1,600 kilometre|km²) and is the county seat of Harris County—the third-most populous in the country."

User:Polaron said that this was confusing because he thought that the sentence meant that the city is the third-largest in the country. As a result, Polaron changed the sentence to say: "The city covers more than 600 square miles (1,600 km²) and is the county seat of Harris County—the third-most populous county in the entire country." Now the word "county" appears twice in one sentence—making it look very unprofesional. What is the point of using an em dash now if you are going to write it like that? The em dash is a connection saying that Harris County being the third-largest in the country. The em dash indicates a sudden break in thought—a parenthetical statement like this one—or an open range (such as "John Doe, 1987—"). The em dash is used in much the way a colon or set of parentheses is used: it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak. The sentence right after the em dash describes that the third-largest in the country being Harris County. I am sorry, I do not know how to explain this any better—I just know how to use it properly. From a person that knows how to use the em dash and uses it regularly, it does not seem to be misleading at all. I can understand that it can be misleading if someone doesn't know what "—" (<---that is what an "em dash" looks like) is. Can someone explain this better than I can regarding the usage of an em dash? —RJN 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't really need a dash there, a comma would do and probably clear up the confusion. I also think "county in the country" is sort of clumsy. I'd suggest something like.... "The city ... is the county seat of Harris County, the third most populous county in the United States." · Katefan0 (scribble) 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I know this is being discussed and will soon be rephrased. However, I changed the intro back to the original wording because Harris County now appears to be a country. Thanks Postoak 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That was my mistake. I meant to change it back to the original wording. —RJN 03:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Culture

This paragraph has been in this article ever since I started editing this page back in May 2005. I have no idea who wrote this and where they got the information. I have been wondering for a while if the claims made in the following paragraph is nothing but an editorial. See below:

"Because the Greater Houston area and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex are the major economic centers of Texas, the two areas enjoy a friendly rivalry. Houstonians often consider themselves more "down to earth" than their neighbors to the north, and some Houstonians complain that Dallas seems to get more attention nationally, though Houston has a larger population. This rivalry often leads to comparison of the assets of one city to the assets of the other. For example, Dallas has more restaurants per person than even New York City while Houstonians eat out more often than residents of any other city in the United States."

Anyone with comments regarding the above paragraph in the "People and culture" section of this article? It's fine if anyone wants to remove it because it sounds like an editorial to me. — RJN 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of the rivalry between the two cities here never made sense to me. "Houstonians eat out more often than residents of any other city in the United States" -- would this be considered an asset? I'd like to see it go. Postoak 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you seriously dispute that Houston and Dallas have a friendly rivalry? · Katefan0 (scribble) 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall that I disputed the rivalry. I feel this section should focus more on the ethnicities, cultures and traits of the citizens rather than an entire paragraph describing the rivalry with Dallas. What do you think? Postoak 05:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Culture II

Why can't we add info about the largest church in north america making it's home in houston to the culture section? It's something that should be added as almost every houston book mentions lakewood church. Not meant to be advertisement just a very important fact. We can mention the fact that houston has one of the largest gay communities, but can't mention the fact that houston is home to one of the largest churches (lakewood) in the WORLD?

Lakewood Church

Here's what i'm proposing:

Houston is also home to megachurch Lakewood Church. Lakewood averages over 30,000 adult attendees every week. The church currently has three English services and one Spanish service each weekend. Lakewood is located on the Southwest Freeway (U.S. Highway 59), the busiest section of freeway in the United States.

--Daniel2986 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Including the address, number of members, and type of services is considered advertisement to me. Also, the content does not fit in the "Culture" section of the Houston article. Houston's culture does not center on one religion and one church. Including a picture of Lakewood Church in this section is also not appropriate—Houston does not center on one religion and Lakewood Church.
You said, "We can mention the fact that houston has one of the largest gay communities, but can't mention the fact that houston is home to one of the largest churches (lakewood) in the WORLD?" What does mentioning about the gay community in the subsection of "A cosmopolitan city" has to do with anything with wanting to include Lakewood Church? Mentioning the gay population fits perfectly under the subsection of "A cosmopolitan city," which talks about diversity that makes Houston such a cosmopolitan place to live. Again, a particular religion and Lakewood church does not define the culture of Houstonians. Not all Houstonians are members of Lakewood Church—there are other places of worships and religions out there.
How do we really know that Lakewood Church is the largest in the world? Where is the source for this or is it just a speculation?
—RJN 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


It doesn't say "largest in the world", it says "ONE of the largest." Perhaps Culture is the wrong place for it, but surely should be mentioned somewhere else. Things such as, number of members, and saying that it "is located on the busiest highway in the US" (i didn't give an address like you said) is more fact-based information (like trivia) than advertisement. The reason I chose lakewood is because it is a NONdenominational church. In other words, it isn't made up of a "ONE" religion (like you said), it is a diverse church just like houston is a diverse city.
--Daniel2986 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC
I believe it is noteworthy and should be included in the article somewhere as a reference pointing to the Lakewood Church article, but not in the "Culture" section. According to the Christian Science Monitor [1], it does have the largest congregation in America.
( I propose something like "Houston is the home of Lakewood Church which has the largest congregation in the United States") Postoak 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the consideration, guys. Just think it's something important and interesting that shows how truly diverse our city is. Remember this is a NONdenominational church, so it represents our city and it's diversity well. Also, the only reason I chose to put this in the “culture” sections is because Culture is defined as this: “The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, BELIEFS, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.” And I though something about Houston’s diverse religious beliefs would fall under “BELIEFS” therefore it would go under “Culture.”
Thanks--Daniel2986 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Houston Infobox

Template:Houston Infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. jareha (comments) 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article nomination progress notes

User:RJN has proposed that the Houston article be nominated for Featured Article by the end of the year. Let's discuss what needs to be done to get the article ready for the nomination. Your feedback is requested!

I feel this article is stable. We should focus on clarity and refinement of the current article. The article is large, perhaps edit for size? Additionally, we should carefully review major changes and/or additions that could effect article stability. Postoak 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that this article is stable. The article is large, but I would not know how to cut it shorter. Perhaps we can cut the "History" section since we already have a main article for it. Another problem with this section is that the materials are disjointed somewhat. By "cutting" the section, I mean to shorten it, not deleting it entirely. Any suggestions regarding the History section or any other section of this article? —RJN 05:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few sections that I feel could be shortened:
1. History, Early settlers, could be condensed to 2 paragraphs.
2. Climate, could be condensed to 1 - 2 paragraphs. Does the "biome" discussion belong in climate?
3. Crime could be shortened. Too much emphasis on Katrina related crime.
4. Education, primary and secondary education, the first paragraph about TEA could be shortened to one sentence. The pararaph on private schools could be shortened.
5. I don't think Trivia is even needed.
Postoak 02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The references need to fixed up to use the {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc. templates. I'd also like to see more inline references (although there are many already). joturner 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened this article from 75KB to 62KB. My goal is to shorten it to at least 59KB and format all of the references before nominating this article for peer review. If the article stays the same as it is today with correct formatting of references, it will be larger than the current size of 62KB. If anyone didn't know, the current formatting of references for this article is not properly done—I have been too lazy to correct this. Maybe someone can help out with formatting 42 entries of references? —RJN 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article has been stable for some time now. We should review the feature article notes/recommendations to make sure the article is compliant. I propose that the article go to peer review by the end of October. Postoak 20:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to replace the Port of Houston image..does anyone have one that we can use? Postoak 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Universities

Regarding quotes from U.S. News and World Reports, I believe they should be passed out evenly among the universities in Houston. I edited South Texas College of Law to be equivalent to the cites for Rice and UH Law School. In the UH Law School section, it talked about the ranking of their excellent IP and Health law programs. Rice was cited for their overall ranking. South Texas was also ranked by U.S. News and World Reports as number one for their Trial Advocacy Program. Isn't that a good thing for Houston? But my edits were removed with the comment "should be in the school literature?" If you do that, then you must remove the exact same comments for the other schools. Both UH and South Texas were ranked number one in their respective categories by the same source, namely U.S. News and World Reports, so how can you justify one and not the other? Acting on your comments, I removed all cites pertaining to U.S. News and World Reports as we have to be even handed here. No bias! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.6.80.48 (talk • contribs) .

Update. The correct cites are now listed. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.6.80.48 (talk • contribs) .

A cosmopolitan city

Again I ask, why can't the "lakewood" article have "Lakewood is located on the Southwest Freeway (U.S. Highway 59), the busiest section of freeway in the United States."? RJN stated that it was "advertisement" because it gave an address and so it was not allowed. Yet a couple of lines above in the gay/lesbian section this is stated "The event [gay parade] is held along Westheimer Road in the Montrose area—home to many gay establishments, such as restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and coffeehouses." How is that ANY DIFFERENT from the trivia-like info I gave about Highway 59?--Daniel2986 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniel2986, within the context of the article, your Lakewood Church edit complete with photo, service times, location, etc. appeared as advertising. If the "busiest section of freeway " fact should be in the article, then put it in the Transportation section where it is more appropriate. The annual parade metioned in the article describes only a parade route and does not mention any particular restaurant, bar or coffeehouse names. Furthermore, if we're going to discuss religious diversity in the article, then we should also mention the other religions from around the world present in the city. Lakewood is only one church and this church certainly does not represent the entire city. Postoak 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

It has been suggested that six Houston-related articles: First Ward, Second Ward, Third Ward, Fourth Ward, Fifth Ward, and Sixth Ward be merged into one article—The six wards of Houston. Please discuss the proposed merger on this talk page. —RJN 03:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RJN, I'd like to hear your thoughts on your proposed merge of the above-mentioned articles into the new article, The Six Wards of Houston. Thanks. Ufwuct 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Having the Wards of Houston in one article is a great idea. The article could start with the reason the wards were created, some historical background and then a description of each ward individually. Postoak 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that organization is great. I'm just not sure that users would look up "Six Wards of Houston" or something similar in Wikipedia. I would imagine that it would be much more common for people to look up "Third Ward", "Fourth Ward", "Second Ward", or "Fifth Ward" (I would guess we'd have very few people looking up the First and Sixth, though, because they are not as well known). Should we have redirects from the more common search terms that most people would use to a much less common term of which most people are probably not aware? I think the Wikipedia policy is, in general, to use the more common term for the name of the article. I'm not sure what the policy would be (if there even is one) for this type of merger though. Please let me know what y'all's thoughts are and if you know the policy on this. If there are no rules or guidelines for this, I would support the merge if the group was in favor of it. Ufwuct 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Except for the Houstonians here, I doubt that many readers know about the historic wards. The current individual articles could redirect to the single article, as well as perhaps "Historic Wards of Houston", etc. I think the new article linked from within the Houston article (History?) would also be appropriate.Postoak 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: Never mind, I was going to ask about the Houston template, but I see that it's been changed. Postoak, RJN, or anyone else, I would appreciate your input on Template talk:Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA if you have a spare minute. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything User:Postoak mentioned about having it in one article. It would be much easier to manage and expand. I like the idea of the article starting with the reason the wards were created, some historical background, and then a description of each ward individually. I will now redirect all of six articles to The six wards of Houston. You guys might wander why I named it "The six wards of Houston" instead of The Six Wards of Houston. Wikipedia's manual of style suggests that only the first letter and proper nouns be capitalized—"six" and "wards" are not proper nouns. Is everyone okay with "The six wards of Houston" or would you guys rather come up with something else—like Historical wards of Houston? —RJN 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. I'm OK with the article name. Postoak 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Evacuees / Refugees

Copied from User talk:RJN

I didn't change it but I nevertheless do not think that your reverting it is a minor edit. There was a huge debate domestically, and especially in Houston, on what to call the Katrina victims, evacuees or refugees. The New Orleanians objected to being called refugees, since this is a term usually used for people that have to seek refuge in a foreign country, compare the UN definition in the article. So unless you provide a reason for why it should be refugees instead of evacuees I will change it back to what the IP did. Crix 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey RJN, I think that Crix and the anon is correct here. Although "refugee" would not be an incorrect word to use in the article, "evacuee" would more politically/socially/legally correct. [2] Actually the UN would call them internally displaced persons if we were to use their terminology. [3] Postoak 02:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Hurricane Katrina article uses "evacuee" to describe these internally displaced refugees :) Postoak 02:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
So I changed it for now, and for sake of simplicity, I will copy this discussion to Talk:Houston, Texas. Crix 03:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RJN, which word are you talking about? If this is still about "evacuee", just try a simply google search: Australian English, British English. So this word is well-known outside of the US, and people will know what it is, I mean it's not that difficult anyway, given that everybody understands what "evacuation" means. But anyway, I noticed that you didn't reinsert "refugees" again, your phrasing "people seeking refuge" is borderline, I can live with that. Crix 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Crix, these were people seeking refuge in the city. What do you mean by borderline? Postoak 04:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
it is borderline, because formally it does not mean the same as refugee, but it nevertheless suggests it. Also stylistically, I would usually change "These hurricane victims seeking refuge" to "These hurricane evacuees", because the former phrasing sounds awkward to me. But given the discussion here, I won't. Crix 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what the media and those whiny liberals prefer them to be called, everyone I know will continue to refer to these people as REFUGEES—that is what they are and always will be until they move back to New Orleans! In general, anyone who adheres to American English or a speaker of true American English will refer to these people as refugees. Go look up what "refugee" means—it does not denote anything offensive or will it make someone less of an American. People (primarily liberals) need to quit crying about things that are unimportant. Those people will always be refugees to my friends and I so get over it. A lot of these people who use the term "evacuee" are only doing it for "political correctness"—they don't really mean it. People in the media—televisions and newpapers—are forced to use the term "evacuee" because people of a certain group who can't speak proper English will always cry about "inequality" and "racism". They will always cry and bitch about something to get their ways. —RJN 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

well talking about lack of NPOV... I rest my case.... Crix 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not heard any college-educated person or a working professional that I have encountered uses the term "evacuee" when referring to these refugees. I know people in the media and they don't even use it—only when they put things in print. Some people are just so delusional with what is and what isn't—mostly hardcore liberals that cry "racism" and "inequality" all the times! —RJN 05:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
well first of all, liberals are people too. But anyhow, here is a source to a forum that includes Houstonians from all walks of life, and if you browse through the subsection on New Orleans, you'll notice that they use both "refugees" and "evacuees", irrespective of their political affiliation: HAIF Forum. And let me reiterate: in the context of WWII, the word "evacuee" was used extensively in the UK, so it is not an obscure term internationally (Evacuees in the UK). Crix 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, two things: 1. what you wrote precisely illustrates that there is a debate going on in America about what these terms mean, which is highly dependent on various mostly subjective criteria, a dictionary will not be of great use here (but if you insist: the American Heritage Dictionary says "in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution", neither would apply to Katrina). 2. given the fact that these terms are controversial, we have three terms to choose from: refugees, evacuess and internally displaced persons. Now the first sounds offensive to some people (and then some people only apply it to "externally displaced people", i.e. people who had to flee into a foreign country), and the third sounds like an overly PC term (and very technocratic). So a compromise, IMHO, from an NPOV perspective, would be "evacuee". A compromise, no more and no less. Crix 06:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I already copyedited the "Crime" section of the article. The current version does not have the words "refugee" or "evacuee"—that is NPOV enough. That was compromise when I took out "refugees". —RJN 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
well I said I'm ok with your version although I would still prefer "evacuees", and I didn't erupt into a tirade about "whiny liberals". So it's fine by me. Crix 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I was a victim of Hurricane Katrina, I wouldn't be offended if I was referred to as a refugee. I don't know why people get so worked up with that word. Being a refugee while staying somewhere does not make anyone less of an American citizen. —RJN 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not a Hurricane victim myself, I can only speculate, so let me try: given the strong connotation (at least for some people, let's keep in mind that language is not uniform) that refugees are people who left their country because of war, those New Orleanians who are offended feel that this somehow implies they are foreigners in their own country. I mean prior to Katrina, most people associated the word "refugee" with victims of Civil War in some obscure African country that they saw on TV. Something like that. Crix 06:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

check a couple more dictionaries. I suggest looking specifically on www.onelook.com as it will bring numerous online dictionaries with results. For instance, 

from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
    refugee  • noun a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary gives us the etymology as: French réfugié, past participle of (se) réfugier to take refuge, from Middle French refugier, from Latin refugium
one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

Also, when searching definitions for evacuee I located a reference to war as well. I do not see the point in causing such a huff over the specific semantics here. Either word is appropriate in definition, whether your connotation of the words leads you to believe otherwise. No matter your views on the specific wording, the point is made in the article that Houston opened its doors, and Houstonians provided a great deal of aid and relief to the recovery efforts. It will be interesting, however, to see how the culture section of this article changes as many of the evacuees/refugees become permanent citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.89.103.130 (talk • contribs) .

lack of NPOV regarding crime and immigrants?

OK, so I'm gonna open the next can of worms ;)... Some remarks about illegal immigrants and New Orleanians strike me as overly POV. I have followed the debate in Houston about these two topics quite closely, and I can definitely tell you that these are highly controversial. So I would suggest softening the phrasing a bit. For example, I seem to remember that some New Orleanians were also murder victims and nevertheless included by the HPD in the "Katrina related homicides". I also remember some people saying that homicides numbers can change drastically from year to year without apparent reason, and additionally some people blaming the city for underfinancing the HPD (which then allegedly led to a general increase in crime). Or what about the reasoning that many New Orleanians who were not familiar with Houston's neighborhoods were directed towards problematic areas in Southwest Houston. But before you start bashing me: I'm not taking any sides here, just pointing out that the article as it now stands presents certain aspects of a controversial debate as facts instead of opinions. Crix 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template rediscussion

What happened to the Unincorporated Areas? They were only here for about 5 days. Was the template "getting too big" because of the 119 cities and towns listed or because of the 11 unincorporated areas? Please tell me what your thoughts are. My posts on these discussion pages are not requests for work; I'd like to hear your thoughts in detail. I could make the changes myself, but I'd like to hear opinions. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that The Woodlands, for instance, is larger (by 2000 population and 2005 population estimate) than the first 75 entities listed in "Cities and Towns" and larger than 114 (all but 5: Houston, Pasadena, Sugar Land, Baytown, and Galveston(only larger in 2000)). So, I'm still not sure why all of these towns were put here and all unincorporated areas (all but 3 or 4 seem notable) are being left out. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about geography and there's close to 10 "cities" I've never heard of. My overall favorite has to be Quintana: population 38.

I am thinking of taking this template out of articles altogether. What do you think about removing the template or listing it for deletion? I want to take it out because it is useless and is taking up a lot of space in articles—even for an article as large as Houston. I feel this template is redundant since there is an article on Greater Houston linked on (almost) every page. Within the article on "Greater Houston," there is a link that list all of the cities and towns within the U.S. Census defined Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown metropolitan area (see List of cities and towns in Greater Houston). —RJN 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are very few other metro area articles with a metro area template. The templates for DFW and Chicagoland look less cluttered but in my opinion, do not look as sharp as the one you've made for Houston. One of the good things about those two templates (particularly Chicago) is that it looks like a decision was made to include only cities of a certain size. This template would be a quick guide while List of cities and towns in Greater Houston could be a more complete list. Ufwuct 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect vs. disambiguation page

Does a global city really warrant a disambiguation page instead of a redirect? I think not. Most people in the world probably think of Houston, Texas when they hear simply "Houston", not the town in Scotland, BC, the other 9 U.S. states, the porn star, or a song. Ufwuct 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But it does have a redirect. ???? --Tennis Dynamite 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history page of Houston, it was temporarily changed to point to disambiguation. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects. Tinlinkin 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Elevation

I have changed the wording to reflect than there are areas above 90 feet above sea level within the city limits. If you are interested in my reasoning, please read on:

(For anyone interested, the map showing all Super neighborhoods can be found here and the elevation maps at topozone also conveniently show the city limits (marked "HOUSTON CORP BDY").


I think the quality of the source that I removed is questionable, as it appears to be a summary that the Coast Guard obtained elsewhere and for which they did not provide any sources. Some questionable claims on that website include:

  • IAH is "located approximately 40 minutes" from downtown Houston. It's more like 25 minutes to get to the terminal, not just the edge of the airport according to Mapquest even though Mapquest usually slightly overestimates the time.
  • Houston is a city "with more than three million residents". The metro area is 5.3 million, the city is 2.1 million. To which entity is this claim referring?
  • This portion of their website also refers Astroworld as if it is still open, so I don't know how out of date it is. Was it updated before October 30, 2005? When the metropolitan area population was only 3 million? Before Willowbrook, IAH, Greenspoint, and Carverdale (S.N. #3) were annexed? (If so, this was a very long time ago.)

Also, I don't think the Coast Guard (unless my impression of them is mistaken) can simultaneously be experts on elevation, climate, museums, etc. or even reliable enough sources for an encyclopedia. There are also a few more sources in this article that I'd like to review before the fall. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cityscape section

The area comprised within Loop 610 encompasses much more than just the CBD. Why would someone remove: "many residential neighborhoods that pre-date World War II such as River Oaks" and limit the text to "encompasses the CBD" when that's technically inaccurate? See the map of Houston for CBD and inner Loop 610. Thanks.Yukirat 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed "such as River Oaks" because we can not be bias to one residential community. If we include River Oaks, we have to mention all communities and residential neighborhoods inside of Loop 610. We can not include all of them because this is a summarize article. If you want to boost River Oaks, then do it in Districts and communities of Houston, but not in the main article. If you take the time to read the entire article, only city's districts or areas that depicts Houston are mentioned. River Oaks does not represent Houston nor does it represent all of Houstonians. You said that River Oaks is "extremely notable"...what makes it so notable? Where is the source for this? Mentioning River Oaks in the sentence is to your personal point of view. Please do not revert/reinsert or I will report you for 3RR like you did on White (people). —RJN 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, do not delete the paragraph on gay and lesbian and try hiding it by reordering the sections like you did. —RJN 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Take it easy buddy. Assume good faith. Nobody is hiding anything. You are talking about this edit, and it's totally clear [4]. Please stop making accusations that have no basis in fact. The text "to commemorate the struggle for gay liberation, gay rights, gay pride, and the Stonewall riots of the late 1960s in New York City" has nothing to do with Houston. We all know what a Gay Pride Parade is and there is a link should someone desire more info or history about the Stonewall riots in New York City. Do we need to include non-necessary text about the history of Greece to explain what the Houston Greek Festival is about? I think you should justify why that text is necessary in an article that is supposed to focus on Houston.
Okay, I have removed the information that was not relevant to Houston. —RJN 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding River Oaks, it's not "boosterism" and that is not my intent. River Oaks is very notable in the same way Beverly Hills is notable and usually discussed when talking about L.A.'s West Side.
Also, why would you revert info for the reader regarding higher-denisty development within 610 Loop? It is important to discuss the cityscape within 610 which includes mostly single-family neighborhoods however also higher-density development that leads to the urban environment. Your reverts of additional information to this section are odd, because the text was extremely incorrect before when it stated that all that was within 610 was the CBD. The CBD may be about 2 square miles, or (just guessing) maybe 2% of the total land area within 610. The section could use more data and information, not your reverts. Thanks.Yukirat 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added back the sentence regarding high-density developments within Loop 610. Sorry about that. —RJN 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, do you work for the Houston Chamber of Commerce or something? Who says "If we include River Oaks, we have to mention all communities and residential neighborhoods inside of Loop 610"? Many Wikipedia articles about US cities mention the most historical and notable neighborhoods without having to mention every single one of them. This Houston article reads very different from most city articles on Wikipedia, and has a very odd "Chamber of Commerce" type tone to it. Worried you'll get sued for mentioning River Oaks and leaving some other MLS neighborhood out? Go edit out the neighborhoods listed in Dallas if you feel so strongly about removing them. Lastly, any article about Houston that makes no mention of the Houston Galleria in the Uptown section, when it is still the number one tourist attraction in the city proper is odd. I'll contribute there. Thanks.Yukirat 23:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The Galleria is mentioned in the "Tourism and recreation" subsection of this article under "Culture". The reason Galleria is not mentioned in the Uptown subheading of this article is because that section is specifically for architectural topics. Galleria is mentioned many times and is the main topic in the Uptown Houston article. The Galleria also has its own article—Houston Galleria. —RJN 23:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I know. However, consider that it's still significant and worthy of a sentence, or at least a mention and link under the Uptown section. Architecturally speaking it is significant for Houston based on size alone. Furthermore, it was (I believe) the first mixed-use shopping/hotel/office property of that kind in the USA, however I'll check on it. The Galleria is highly associated with Houston, and shouldn't it deserve a mention? I think leaving it out completely is an ommision esp. with regards to a section about Uptown.Yukirat 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You are right, the Galleria is supposedly the first mixed-use property of what is now the Uptown District. So yes, it deserves a mention. —RJN 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fault Lines

I have changed the source for the claim regarding fault lines from a realtor's website to a paper presentation from the 2006 Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Convention, a detailed fault line map from the USDA, and a comprehensive geological study of the Houston area] from the USGS.

First, I have to say that although I have observed the effects of these small fault lines on sidewalks and roads in west Houston, I was quite surprised that the number of faults and aggregate lengths was even longer than was quoted in this article before (which I even thought was too high). It's very interesting.

Second, I feel much more comfortable have these scientific sources backing up scientific claims.

Third, I don't know if this section needs all three sources. Maybe the USDA one is overkill, but nonetheless I think the map is interesting and I think other people reading this article who are unfamiliar with the geology of Houston might find it interesting as well.

Cheers! Ufwuct 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article update II

I have worked hard on this article for a while in hoping it would be come a featured article. I hope the quality and formatting of this page will preserve as I am no longer interested in editing Wikipedia. I can now let this article go knowing that there are two other editors interested in taking this article to FA status. It's nice to know that there are other people interested in improving and keeping this article accurate. I might come back in a few months or weeks to organize this article, if needed. Until then, I think I need a Wiki break—editing Wikipedia too much is not healthy.

Recently, I have trimmed some information to shorten the article size to at least 59KB—we are at 63.2KB right now at the time of this discussion. I created separate main articles for all the sections of the Houston page so that people can add whatever they want without expanding the main page of Houston, Texas. The information I deleted from the main page are still in their main respective article section. I think the History section is too long for a summary article and should be shorten as much as possible. In general, this article is stable and unimportant information should be added to their split-off pages only.

If anyone is interested in changing the images on this page, go to www.flickr.com/creativecommons and search for Houston pictures. Try not to get images from www.visithoustontexas.com if possible. The flickr website was where I found most of the free images for Houston. If you guys have not noticed, I have replaced several copyrighted fair use images to free ones from flickr.

Best,

RJN 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

RJN, you made this article what it is today. So take a wikibreak or whatever, but please come back. We need you here. Take care Postoak 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Demographic information

I have reverted edits by LouisvilleSlugger, as they were not sourced and appeared to be random edits. These numbers for white, black, asian, and hispanic are in agreement with the earlier data. Thanks. Ufwuct 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Re-rediscussing Greater Houston template

Reading Alberta today, I noticed that they use 2 pop-down templates. This tackles the space requirement that RJN objects to (present tense, as I hope he'll come back some time :) ). The Chicagoland template lists only cities of a certain size. This addresses the problem I had regarding the elevation in status of some very minor cities (e.g. Quintana, Texas, pop. 38) over larger CDPs (e.g. The Woodlands, Texas whose population is more than 1,000 times greater). This would also further address the issue of article space. Maybe a good cutoff would be 10,000 people? I will edit the template first and then consider re-adding to the article if there are no objections. Thanks. Ufwuct 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Check out the template on Dallas, Texas. They grouped cities by population and linked the towns under 10,000 to an alternate page. Postoak 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts regarding Politics, METRO

I [5] most of the edits by User:4.230.54.96 because we're trying to cut down on the size of the article. One of the edits added was something I deleted because it was already in the sub-article. Also, the line regarding the University Line was POV and wrong. The date was correct though. Good catch! Thanks. Ufwuct 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Charter schools

Even though this refers to the Education in Houston article, I am posting this here.

I am going create a new article - List of state-operated charter schools in Houston so I can list charter schools not under HISD and SBISD. WhisperToMe 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

Does anyone have a source for the pleasure boat statement below? Do we need it in the lead section? Perhaps this paragraph should be revised to describe the international presence and/or ethnic diversity of the city. It think this would be more appropriate for the lead section. Comments?

The city is within proximity to beaches on Galveston Island as well as one of the United States's largest concentrations of pleasure boats.

Thanks Postoak 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess this could be suspect also...source? The area is also the world's leading center for building oilfield equipment. Postoak 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Houston Portal

I found that Philadelphia has a portal. I think Houston should have one too :)

It should be at Portal:Houston WhisperToMe 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston/Archive_3&oldid=1089889074"