Talk:Terrace Park, Ohio/Archive 1

Archive 1

metropolitan?

The article was edited to say that TP is in the Cincy metropolitan area because all of Hamilton County is by definition part of it. Where is that definition? Terrace Park and Indian Hill are not metropolitan areas by any reasonable definition. I'm guessing this is some census designation as it seems like the kind of logic that could only come from the federal government. The article on Hamilton County lists TP as a village. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Cincinnati metropolitan area? Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If I correctly take the meaning of that question, you are indicating that it is indeed a statistical definition from the census bureau. And yet the same article does list other, larger villages such as Mariemont and Blue Ash in Ham. Co. as "suburbs" which is a more common-sense definition of what places like Terrace Park are. Should we not use the more accepted and reasonable definition? The census uses such designations for their own purposes, nobody could reasonably define TP as "metropolitan." The census defines it as part of a statiscal area, not actually a metropolitan area itself. At the very least that should be reflected. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand your meaning. Do you take me to mean that Terrace Park is the core of a metropolitan area? If so, you're misunderstanding me; if not, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. It's part of a metropolitan area; that article's statement of "It [the metropolitan area] is mainly the area that is not part of the city but is connected to the city" fits communities such as Terrace Park very well. Anyway, the Cincinnati metropolitan area article isn't too accurate on the process of definition; as United States metropolitan area will tell you, the definition is made by the Office of Management and Budget. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other and misunderstanding each other a bit here. What I was trying to say is that Terrace Park is a small village, and not really "metropolitan" at all, despite the fact that the census describes it that way. I think the current version of the article expresses that fairly well. The census tends to use descriptors like that for their own purposes, whether they make sense or not. I first became aware of this when working on the article on Lake Louise, Alaska. It is described as part of the Anchorage MSO despite being a small, isolated settlement that is hundreds of miles from Anchorage. So my point is, we shouldn't just blindly accept the census' definition if it is used only for census statistical purposes and does not actually reflect the "flavor" of the place being described. I guarantee that the census is the only source that would describe Terrace Park as metropolitan. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Several problems: (1) There is no such thing as the Cincinnati-Middletown Metropolitan Area. (2) As I already told you, the Census Bureau doesn't even make these definitions; they're far from being the only people who use them. (3) Your wording has the effect of saying "a reliable source says this but of course it's wrong". By definition, you can't have a suburb if it's not in a metropolitan area. The community of Finneytown is adjacent to the Cincinnati neighborhood of Hartwell, and it's definitely suburban. Would you therefore say that it's not part of the metro area? If I understand you rightly, you're effectively restricting the idea of "metropolitan area" to just the highly urbanised areas, and that's not at all how the term is used in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in folks. Beeblebrox, when you see the word "metropolitan," you're reading "urban." I've never been to Terrace Park, Ohio or Miller Landing, Alaska, but it sounds like you're quite right that neither place is "urban." And yet, both places can indeed be a part of a larger "metropolitan area," be it Cincinnati or Anchorage. When one speaks of "metropolitan France," for example, one is referring to the contiguous geographical entity in western Europe - rural areas, villages and all, as well as les arrondisements et les boulevards de Paris - in contrast to the overseas departements and dependencies that are also a part of La Republique Francaise. Whether or not Miller Landing should or shouldn't be considered part of the Anchorage metropolitan area by the US census bureau is another matter, more dependent on such questions as "in Miller Landing, do you take the Anchorage paper, root for their teams and go there for culture and other things you don't have in Miller Landing, or do you look to some other city?" than it is on the character (urban, village or rural) of the place. Coming from yet another region (Upstate New York) of whose geography officialdom and other outsiders are often stunningly ignorant, I'm sympathetic to the raised hackles of both of you about how others refer to your hometowns.Don Argus jr (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nyttend, I have to say I'm surprised at your somewhat hostile reaction to my attempt at a compromise, and I am also worried that we are embarking on an edit war, since you have now reverted my new changes yet again back to your preferred version, rejecting any attempt at compromise between our two viewpoints. I'm not sure where we went wrong here, but I'd like to try and clear a few things up:

• Every source one can find on Terrace Park that is not the census defines it as a village or a suburb. My edits were not intended to say the census is wrong, they were an attempt to balance the census definition and the practical, real world definition used by the press and the general public
• There is in fact such a thing as the the Cinicinatti-Middletown MSA, as indicated and properly sourced at Cincinnati – Northern Kentucky metropolitan area
• Just to clarify, I am an American, and while I don't believe it's impossible for suburbs to be in metro areas (Norwood, Ohio comes to mind) I don't think the census definition in this case jives with most Americans idea of what a metropolitan area is. The example of Lake Louise was put forward as an example of the somewhat ridiculous stretching of the definition of the term by the census. I have myself worked for the census, so I am not the babe in the woods you seem to think I am regarding their methods and terminology.
• In short, it was my intent to accurately reflect both the census definition and a more practical, real world definition. Unfortunately Nyttend seems to be opposed to the word "suburb" even being in the article, which I frankly do not understand at all. I hope we can all continue this dialogue and come to a solution that is mutually acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea: Right after I posted this an idea hit me that may satisfy both of us: A term that is widely used in the press to describe this region is Greater Cincinnati, which, as it turns out redirects to Cincinnati – Northern Kentucky metropolitan area. What of we worded it something like this : Terrace Park is a village in Hamilton County, Ohio, United States, it is a suburb within the Greater Cincinnati area. I think this would satisfy both of our concerns, but in the interest of not edit warring I am posting it here for review first. Thoughts everyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections or other comments I have made this change. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another edit war over Terrace Park

Gentlemen, would you care to discuss the matter here? If I understand correctly, David is saying his addition is verified by the same source "A Place called Terrace Park by Ellis Rawnsley" already used in the article and Nyttend is saying that's not good enough for some reason? Please drop your weapons and discuss, this edit warring is not how we get things done around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, thanks for noticing, I would hope you would return. I agree with your analysis above. Also, I saw your above discussion and am not surprised he did not address my concerns. I did write a note above under "Native American History". Incidentally, before I saw your battle over how to refer to where Terrace Park was, I also had the same issue in correctiung someone who mistakenly thought it was Terrace Park was IN Cincinnati--and certainly suburb doesn't describe it well, since it is pre-1950's and is not really consumed into suburbia tract houses like rapidly expanding area in say California or near Chicago. I actually was about to use the Metropolitan area (term I have seen frequently and do think is accurate, although not as well know), when I saw Greater Cincinnati Area, and I knew immediately that was the best term, since that's the local term and is understood. I was amused and please you had come to exactly the same conclusion and it has withstood the test of time. Great minds think alike. :-) David Tornheim (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Native American History

Dear Nyttend: You keep deleting sourced material on Native American presence in Terrace Park. Native Americans lived in Terrace Park before Europeans arrived and violently chased them off their land, as happened throughout the United States. It is biased to remove this history simply by saying "no solid sources" when the source material for the European history section is based on the the exact same source and the Native American section has more reliable sources, including Wikipedia entries. The history of Terrace Park does not begin with the Europeans. comment added 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC). David Tornheim (talk)

I have added the high quality source material cited by Ms. Rawnsley in the preface. This hopefully satisfies your need for "solid" sources.David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that other Wikipedia pages are not considered reliable sources. However the other sources you have added should be sufficient for verification purposes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that about Wikipedia sources. Makes sense though, I suppose: Avoids circular definitions. I did my best to explain Rawnsley's sources quoted in the preface, when the document is first introduced in the article. It may be overkill.David Tornheim (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nytend (part II): I have made substantial efforts to accommodate your concerns. I added reputable sources and you deleted them. You appear to have completely ignored all of the improvements I have made (including fixing broken links), ignored all of the concerns and comments I have raised regarding inconsistently, simply deleting any improvements without taking this seriously, and made no efforts whatsoever at compromise or improvement on the site, only making it worse by deleting additional material. I agree with Mr. Bebbebrox it would be better to discuss here rather than just delete new material that you find offense, which apparently is because you dislike Native Americans and their history, but do not hold European history to the same standards. David Tornheim (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that the Rawnsley document is not "self-published" in the way that a person who creates their own web-site and makes it available and has sole and exclusive control over it and it's just one lone 'shooter', having never been viewed or reviewed by anyone else for credibility. It formerly was on the Terrace Park Historical Society web-page (and may still be there), and is on the Terrace Park government web-site (terracepark.com), basically saying that both groups sanction it is legitimate--you would think both groups local to the area and aware of it history would have some knowledge about the topic. This document was original in paper form and I had (or saw a paper copy) and may still have a copy of somewhere back from 1992 when it first was published and was widely made available to residents of the area.

You can see an image of it here: [amazon.com] David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The author was a copy editor at the only major Cincinnati Newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer and has an extensive resume: [Resume for Ellis Rawnsley] David Tornheim (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any gaping errors in the document. Given, it would have been nice is the author had used footnotes for each passage to cite source, so it was clear where the specific material had come from. However, I have seen no alternative with better sources, so really do not understand the pension for deleting this very valuable work of local history as if it were useless. David Tornheim (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nytend: Since you have refused to take any consideration for my messages, refuse to discuss and delete references, even those that meet Wikipedia bias and show a consistent Eurocentric version and double-standard towards history of Terrace Park, you leave me no choice but to place NPOV tags in the Eurocentrically slanted history section. Please do not delete these tags. Hopefully a third party will engage in discussion rather than blantant biased censorship. David Tornheim (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)