Talk:Akron, Ohio/Archive 4

Crime history
The "history" section under "Crime" is largely trivial, not to mention poorly written. For instance "Historically, Akron has witnessed several riots in the city." This sentence alone leaves the reader wondering, OK...what riots? It has nothing to back up the claim; no further info, no sources. It then jumps to the next sentence mentioning the KKK, which is not a criminal organization. The overused excuse of "similar to NYC's" is not only irrelevant here, but it isn't even true. There is no "history" section at New York City. There are a few historic instances mentioned in the main section, but if there is a history section, it is at Crime in New York City just as any relevant, encyclopedic history of crime in Akron should be at Crime in Akron, Ohio. On top of that, NYC has a well-established reputation for organized crime; Akron does not. Remember, the NYC article is not an exact model of what this page should look like; it's good to get some ideas from it, but there are going to be major differences between the two articles since NYC is significantly larger and older as a city than Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty Boy Floyd should be mentioned in the Notable natives and residents section, but not in the Crime section. His connection to Akron crime is small and trivial at best (brief appearance in Akron, arrested, later escaped and went to Kansas) and does nothing to add to the crime section as he merely passed through Akron.  Rosario Borgio has no sources (which was a problem the last time his name was added into this article) and seems to be the only major instance of organized crime, and the KKK is not organized crime at all.  KKK is far more relevant to Race relations than to crime and is worth noting the KKK had a large following all over the region at one time; not just in Akron.  WP:USCITY doesn't even have a Crime section as part of the standard template, but my guess is that it's mostly for current crime rates with any major notable crime history (such as in New York).  Again, just because New York City has a notable crime history doesn't mean Akron does.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty Boy Floyd is a MINOR notable former resident as he only lived in Akron briefly. The sources from his Wikipedia article mention Akron just once, so listing him with more notable natives is completely out of place.  Funny you have decreed now that 20 is a good number only when it suits your interests.  The section was fine as is -- one of the few sections in this article that is actually in good shape -- it does not need him mentioned at all to further educate someone about Akron.  It would be one thing if he were an Akron native or had lived in Akron for a long time with a well-established network, but neither is true.  Akron was a quick stop in his life.  Further, what you wrote Threeblur has no source backing up the claim that he committed crimes (plural) in the city; he was arrested for ONE crime, that being involvement in the murder of the Akron police officer.  In addition, mentioning what happens after he left Akron ("before being shot to death") is irrelevant to this article. Again, what is written by us as editors needs to actually match what the sources say.  --JonRidinger (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty Boy Floyd is STILL resident related. Your not supposed to use other wikies as a source, just because an article says something or dosent, dosent always mean its complete and true. Funny how never removed any people added to the list the whole time the statement that i accidently coppied was there and how you switch from saying that he was suitable for the resident section, but now change to saying he isnt only when it suits your interests. The section is still fine as is and more informed -- just as most if not all the articles are -- it helps and is suitable.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the material at the reference and it does not even say that he lived in Akron at all. He lived in East Liverpool.  That does not mean that he didn't  live in Akron, but until there is an acceptable source that actually says he lived in Akron he cannot be included in the Akron article. And yes, my edit comment should have "arrested" rather than "killed", but either way it wasn't in Akron. --Beirne (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thank you for having sharper eyes than mine! In reading it more, it doesn't even say he was arrested in Akron and sounds more like he was arrested by Akron detectives who came to East Liverpool. "...East Liverpool was centrally located in a fairly prosperous area. Floyd and some of his friends selected the city as a headquarters for a rash of robberies they committed from January to March 1930. On March 8, things turned bad for Pretty Boy. Two gang members came in from Akron after a run-in with the police. James Bradley had fired point blank into a policeman's stomach, then been shot by another officer.  Floyd and his gang decided to make a quick getaway after fixing Bradley's wounds. Suddenly, Akron detectives burst into the house, arresting Floyd, Brantley and another man."  OK, I'm going to remove him from the List of people from Akron, Ohio --JonRidinger (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that Floyd is mentioned in relation to the Police Museum. I added East Liverpool to the sentence so it does not sound like he was arrested in Akron, but really don't think it belongs in the article at all. If we are going to say something about the museum it should say in general what is there, not one thing.  That makes it sound like that is all that is there.  And Floyd being arrested may make sense in the East Liverpool article but trying to tie it to Akron through the detectives is a stretch.  While it is true that Akron detectives made the arrest that does not fit in an article about the city of Akron.  --Beirne (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/6590104 --Threeblur0 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An auction description is not a reliable source. I took it back out and left the East Liverpool mention in the sentence.  --Beirne (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the auction description fails WP:RS, but the document in the Auctioneers listing has an address where Floyd was living when he was arrested (under the alias Frank Mitchell), which is in Akron (on Lodi St). It still is a minor trivial fact, but at least he can be listed as having lived in Akron. The Akron police museum mention is a stretch since the Floyd relics are hardly a notable collection. Again, his time in Akron was pretty brief and outside of this incident, there is nothing else involving him. Here is a link directly to the image, which can be used as a source (though it may end up having to be uploaded under fair use if Auctioneers discontinues it): http://archive.liveauctioneers.com/archive4/thewrittenwordautographs/19409/0416_1_lg.jpg --JonRidinger (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just about to state "picture of the arrest card is on the website stating Akron as place of arrest, please dont resort to claiming "it could be fake""... but Jonathon covered it...--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not refer to me as "Jonathon". I have never used that as a reference for myself (so why do you?) and it isn't spelled correctly.  It's one thing to use shortened versions of a user name, but it's another to make up your own versions and your own spellings.  And Beirne never said "it could be fake", he correctly pointed out the auction listing by itself is not a reliable source.  The 1930 arrest document is the reliable source, not the auction listing, so the citation should link directly to the image instead of the auction listing to prevent other editors from making the same assumption.  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont refer to you as "Jonathon". No one said he said that, i was asking him not to. Those and other examples today have proven your creditability to be extremely low John.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you think I would call it a fake? I specifically criticized the auction description as a source, not the document they were selling.  The way you stated it it was perfectly logical for Jon and me to think that you thought I was saying it could be fake, because it is not normal for someone tell tell someone not to say something they never said.  And now you are back to personal attacks.  Please so do not resort to personal attacks, and by that I mean you are doing them now and I wish you would stop.  --Beirne (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you use conspiracy-like reasons led me to the assumption you would. Also you can see the document from that page. Well its not what i meant, and what i stated perfectly makes sense for what i meant to say, also it is normal when you want to stop sombody from an act you think they are about to commit. Im not attacking anyone, just stating facts and naming editors im comminicating with, i wish you and Johnathon would stop alot of things to Bernie.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement about Pretty Boy Floyd requires some context so as not to be misleading. To say "the notorious bank robber Pretty Boy Floyd, who was arrested by Akron detectives" leaves out the fact that the North Georgia source  he was arrested in East Liverpool.  If that is true it should be mentioned so that people do not think he was arrested by detectives in Akron, which neither source says.  The North Georgia article says he was arrested by Akron detectives in East Liverpool, and the arrest record does not say what sort of police arrested him.  There is a basic problem with both sources, though.  The North Georgia one is not a reliable source.  It is just some web page.  It is not scholarly or news-oriented, and the editing process behind the scenes is unknown.  It looks like another tertiary source.  The document, on the other hand, is a primary source.  We can say Floyd was arrested from the document, but that is about it.  The problem then is that it implies that Floyd was arrested in Akron, which is contradicted by the North Georgia article.  The North Georgia article should be dropped as a source and more reliable sources added to allow for statements about Floyd that are correct and not misleading.  If it turns out that he was arrested in Akron then that is fine, but be need sources that say it and the circumstances more clearly and accurately.  --Beirne (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the North Georgia reference has been removed, which is good. I looked some on the Internet and found the book "The Life and Death of Pretty Boy Floyd", published by Kent State University Press.  This is an example of the kind of source that should be used in Wikipedia.  I have replaced the arrest record reference with it.  The references now properly support the statement, which turns out to have been true but contradicted or unsupported by the earlier references.  --Beirne (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Localisms
The short sentences about the localisms "devilstrip" and "Akroness" are still in the article, but need citations. The only sources I could find for Akroness are from non-reliable sources like the Urban dictionary and personal websites that use the term. The urban dictionary site says the word developed in 2004, but again there is no reliablility in the source. I'll leave it in for now, but unless it gets some reliable sources I'll have to take it out. Akroness just sounds like a made-up word like "Akronish" or "Cleveland-esque" or something like it; hardly a unique, established, notable localism. Devilstrip/Devil strip has some actual sources, but not in this article. I removed the mention of tree lawn because "tree lawn" is a regional/local term like devil strip. There is no universal or widespread term for the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the road. Even with the sources, it's borderline trivia to me. One localism? The whole spoken dialect paragraph needs some work anyway since it is almost completely unsourced and one of the sources used doesn't even mention Akron; it mentions Cleveland once. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Meth Capital of Ohio
This was somewhat discussed about a year ago above in Talk:Akron, Ohio. As I reviewed the sources and the info to better organize the section, it is still largely about Summit County rather than Akron. No source specifically stated Summit County's high meth numbers in 2008 were "due" to Akron; rather from what I can see, that was inferred from the list at http://www.justice.gov/dea/seizures/oh.pdf which lists each reported meth site by county and by city. The Beacon Journal articles from Ohio.com do not mention individual city specifics. Simply adding the sites up from the list and placing that total into the article is a form of original research. On top of that, the report uses the mailing address of the property; in other words, something being labeled as "Akron" doesn't mean it is inside the Akron city limits. I saw a few that I know are in neighboring Springfield Township, which largely uses an Akron ZIP code. The same was true for several nearby cities which have a ZIP code that extends far beyond the actual city limits like Ravenna. Even the recommendations made weren't from Akron City Council; they were from Summit County Council. This is significant and notable info; however, I think as I stated a year ago, this would be more appropriate in the Summit County article than here unless some sources can be found that this was specifically an Akron problem dealt with by Akron instead of the county. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but 44266 does not extend into any part of Summit County (let alone Akron). So if the source mentions "Ravenna", even saying the term "Meth Capital of Ohio" applies to Summit County is problematic... let alone Akron. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since i for one am not good with zip code locations, could you and John point out which are not in Summit County so i can get the number correct.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The point is we can't use the PDF file source (which simply lists all meth sites from 2004-2008 by county and "city" (i.e. ZIP code)) and then do our own tally; that is a form of original research because to verify it, someone has to go count themself (see also WP:BOOSTER and WP:SOURCES) and verify that the addresses are actually in the city of Akron.  If someone else used that and published an article (like if the Beacon-Journal had mentioned a specific number for Akron), then we could use that; however, simply going through and counting ourselves falls under OR.  The example I was using for the Ravenna ZIP code was that many of the sites listed as being in "Ravenna" aren't in the city of Ravenna...many are in Ravenna Township or other parts of Portage County served by 44266 (which is actually quite large).  The same was true for the one site listed for Kent...the address is in Brimfield Township, a large part of which is served by the Kent ZIP code.  It was a parallel example to show that we simply cannot tally all the ones that say "Akron" and have an accurate count.
 * Even with the slight rewrite, though, the section is still more appropriate for Summit County, Ohio, especially since the title of the section references the County according to the source. Perhaps a small mention could be made here with a reliable Akron-centric source. It would make sense that most of the sites are in Akron since it is by far the largest city in the county.  But Akron simply being in Summit County doesn't mean there should be a section here that doesn't even reference the article subject. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything that Jon says about original research and this being more of a Summit County topic, but would also suggest that the section be scrapped or updated. The newest information is from 2008 and are even older.  It is stale information now.  --Beirne (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think for the most part, the info is recent enough (the Ohio.com article is from February 2009) to keep at least a mention, but I still haven't heard any compelling arguments while the great bulk of the section shouldn't be moved to Summit County, Ohio with a brief mention here integrated into the main Crime section. The sources clearly indicate this is viewed as a county problem that has been dealt with at the county level with assistance from Akron and other municipalities.  On a side note, I changed a phrase about "nearly a third of the registered sites in the state" (or something similar) because that's basically the same idea as counting them up.  Making our own mathematical estimation is still a form of WP:OR.  Saying they have significantly more is an observation from seeing all the times "Akron" comes up (waaaaay more than any other city by far), though as I said, not all of those listings are actually from the city of Akron.  The only percentage that is spelled out in sources (both in words and in numbers) is that Summit County accounts for about half of all sites in Ohio (102 of 220), which comes from the Beacon Journal article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And P.S. my recent edit summary should've read "simplified citation" instead of "simplied citation."  Whoops!  --JonRidinger (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also a city problem(more, most) the map on the last link shows the locations in Akron and make surrounding cities in the county look like they really dont anythng above a normal problem. I also found a site that decribes effects of meth on Akron but find it hard to word cause alot of the text are interviews, but i'll try.

<---I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but the weight of the section is too high. Not sure what the effects of meth on Akron will do (those effects would likely be the same for any city). Having a paragraph in the crime section or the Crime in Akron, Ohio article is appropriate, but as it stands now the majority of the info and sources (including the title "Meth Capital of Ohio") are directly related to the county. We have to be careful we are presenting the info as it's found in the sources. As for the comparison with other cities, you would need to find a national database to make a claim about Akron having more sites than any city in the US. Be careful about WP:SYN, which is basically using two or more valid sources to come up with a conclusion that is not actually said in any of the sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the US map that links to the individual state reports doesn't work because the only way to verify the claim is to download and look over the reports for every state. You would need a source that actually compares Akron to national cities, whether it be a list or an article.  Just referring to the map is a form of synthesis as I already mentioned and again is a form of OR.  You just can't add info here that way.  --JonRidinger (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not too high, five sentences is a normal paragraph. It will help cover you "an Akron problem dealt with by Akron" statement along with other data in the paragraph that does that. Most cities like Cleveland dont even have a crime page and the reason Akron has one is due to the riots needing room, that page is more of a Crime History page and needs renaming and work.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still almost exculsively about Summit County; Akron's role is supportive rather than principal and we're really stretching so it can be included here when it doesn't need to be.  If anything it shouldn't be a subsection using a title that is referenced to Summit County.  Again, it's really not relevant what the Cleveland article has in determining the notability and correct placement of this section in this article.  And if the Crime in Akron, Ohio is more like a Crime History, that is a problem for that article.  The notable facts are that Akron has a significant number of meth sites compared to other cities in Ohio (more than anyone else) and possibly more than any city in the US (if a reliable source can be found) and that Akron joined with other cities and the county in forming a task force.  It really can be summed up in about two sentences.  Even in 5 it doesn't need its own subheading.  The fact a separate article already exists means the Crime section here should be brief and summative and not contain info or subheadings that isn't in the main article.  And there's nothing wrong with having a history section in the Crime in Akron, Ohio article either.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost isnt fully or exact, nor a good term for Wikipedic activity, no, Akron is the primary reason and it should be here. It's similar "Polymer Valley" which is a subsection using a title that is referenced to NorthEast Ohio, which Akron is in. Again, it's a featured article is a good guide line. That and others. It really cant, if you be precise(like Wikipedia is meant to be) it would state what, when, and why giving history. It seperates the chunk of data from other related things in crime, like subheadings should. The article is Crime history of the city of Akron, which fits the information given on the page. The crime history is too long to be a subsection on this page.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't satisfied the problem here that the majority of the info is about Summit County. You continue to offer excuses and straw man arguments and more weak comparisons with featured articles.  The Polymer Valley section existing is not an excuse for this section to exist.  For one it simply hasn't been edited more yet.  When it was first added, it *did* state that Akron was Polymer Valley and another editor corrected it after the source was read (I seem to remember myself doing that).  I also find it interesting that you want us to explain our every move here (and that you "pleaded" with us to use the talk page as you told User:Versageek here) yet you go and move Crime in Akron, Ohio to a title that is against Wikipedia naming conventions ("City of Akron" is not unique to Akron, Ohio for one) and is a subject that has very little notablilty on its own (Akron crime history??) rather than simply working on improving the broader Crime in Akron, Ohio article and integrating a history section there.  No discussion was put forth for such a move.  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is always a tendency in articles about the major city in the area to expand the content to include the larger area. The problem is that then you don't know what is true about the city the article is about.  That's a problem with the meth capital discussion as well as the polymer valley details.  Akron may be the heart of the polymer valley, but statistics that cover most of NE Ohio don't apply to an article about the city of Akron.  --Beirne (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This was posted on the talkpage,

Akron dosent have a signficant or notable amount of crime to have a page for it, while atmost it's hstorical crime event are. Crime should be on main page like all other cities, and this article renamed Crime history of the city of Akron or City of Akron crime history, to match the data given.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is on this article

In 2008, the county that Akron is located in, Summit, experienced a 42% spike in the number of meth labs raided, and dismantled 68 labs compared to the 2007 total of 48. The county ranked third in the nation in the amount of meth sites behind Jefferson and St. Charles counties in Missouri and is long reputed as the "Meth Capital of Ohio" due mainly to Akron, which between January 2004 and August 2009 had significantly more registered sites in Ohio than any other city. The authorities say the decrease of Mexican meth being imported, after the disruption of a major operation in 2005, attributed to the increase in locally made meth. In 2007, Akron police received a grant to help continue its work with other agencies and jurisdictions to support them in ridding the city of meth labs. The Akron Police Department coordinates with the Summit County Drug Unit and the Drug Enforcement Administration, forming the Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory Response Team.


 * That dosent look like(and isnt) the majority. You continue to alter reasons and contradict things you state earlier as i seem to cause you to do so when i go by it. Polymer Valley is and i just explained why. Thats because no tags were placed on it while the rest of the page was being tagged, which leads editors to rightfully assume it is in good condition, and why does it matter if it wasnt edited much yet? Also find it interesting that the "us" you refer to aspect me to also but yet not explain every move. A discussion is on the talkpage.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First we don't need the entire section copied here. Just use quotes that support your position.  We've all read and edited the content multiple times, so you putting it all here does nothing to advance your position.  And again, the sources continue to talk about Summit County.  What you interpret from the sources about Akron being the "engine" here is the problem.  It may be true, but until it is sourced, it is speculation on your part, so it shouldn't be in the article.  Second, no tags on a section should not be interpreted to mean that it's perfect.  True, a section in good condition won't have tags, but I've been to plenty of articles that don't have tags but have a TON of problems.  It was simply a matter of no one tagging them, not a matter of them being in good shape.  A lot of the issue here is a seemingly endless battle with you Threeblur about sources and what belongs here and what doesn't, so we don't have time or energy to go after every problem here.  Look how much effort this small section is taking.
 * Third, what have I or Beirne "altered" to "contradict things (we) said earlier"? The only "alterations" I've made have been to correct statements that are either unsourced or do not match what the source actually says.  And while Beirne and I don't explain our every move in detail, we explain quite a bit more than we need to and always include an edit summary.  Remember, according to WP:BOP, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, it seemed we did since you state that its mostly about Summit County when it clearly dosent. Just act like or really see what is there. Again, the sources talk about Akron too, and if you google Meth Capital of Ohio with Akron, 18,300 hits come up and only 4,940 when you type it with Summit County. The section dosent say Akron is(again, act like you know or really do it) the capital, and the subheadng is used as Polymer Valley is. Wow, if what your saying is true, than you are showing poor practice as a wiki editor, its one thing to not know but to know and not fix is another, if only you'd show focus on those pages as you do this page. I feel the same Johnathon, but with you, as the true problem being stated. Look how you could of fixed them articles you choose to ignore like you are obligated to do work on this page.
 * Second, your switching of view on Stanford Ovshinsky belonging in the residents section, is one example. What about when you placed a tag during an edit not explaining it at all? Remember, your credibility.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Random break

 * I explained the move with Pretty Boy Floyd after I realized you didn't understand it and after I realized that the notable natives section was already a summary to a larger list and not a still-growing list. Not sure exactly what you're talking about in relation to Ovshinsky.  I am free to change positions when I feel a better position has been presented to my own.  And any tag I placed in an article (I assume you are referring to the cleanup tag in the Meth section) doesn't need a detailed explanation.  It was part of a larger edit.  A cleanup tag means the section needs cleaned up (it was mostly for grammar and sources) and that's when I just got to work editing myself and this whole thread started.  You are in no position to question any editor's credibility.  None.
 * Next, the sources about the "Meth Capital of Ohio" are referring to Summit County, not Akron. Summit County was the 3rd highest county in the nation in meth sites.  That is indisputable.  Since it's talking about Summit County, it belongs in Summit County, Ohio, not this article even if it doesn't say Akron is the Capital (I know it doesn't say that...that isn't the argument).  It's irrelevant how many hits Google has if none of them can pass WP:RS.  If you want it to remain in the article, you need to have sources that deal directly with Akron, not Summit County.  Same with Polymer Valley as it lacks a lot of sources.  Simply existing in the article does not mean it's where it should be or that I've just "ignored" it.  I edit a LOT more articles than just Akron or Akron-related, though lately this seems to be taking a lot of my time. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he was suitable for the section, then changed to saying he wasnt, again just one example of many on this talkpage. You just seem hypocritical in the process by the way you do it. Thats just one i remember off the top. It was part of one other small edit. Actually, i am, since i witness you deplete it. Daily.
 * Next, i know and i didnt say it said Akron(whats wrong with you). I tried to make it relevant in the way you did in a previous section, and thats not the case so its irrelevant mentioning it. I have sources that deal with Akron, which is what is needed. Then put tags. Well you "did nothing about it as an editor". Well do that now, no one is demanding you not.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, the references deal mainly with Summit County, so that is where the topic should be covered unless more specific information from secondary sources on Akron is found. And don't assume because something isn't marked up that we think it is OK.  I know that I've been too busy with issues like the confused references for Pretty Boy Floyd to work on other parts of the article.  Also, sometimes there just aren't tags in Wikipedia for the problems in the article. And threeblur0, stop the personal attacks. --Beirne (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, the references deal with Akron also, so that is where the Akron parts should be, what more secondary references does it need? Well, when everything else that is wrong is being tagged, i cant help it because it makes sense. Also, you can adress those problems on the talkpage given by Wikipedia on the articles. And Bernie, stop trying to gang up and other things you do that arent apropriate, and im more like stating the truth than attacking.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

<---mentioning Summit County isn't "dealing" with Akron any more than a source mentioning northeast Ohio or Ohio itself is. Unless the sources about the meth use talk about Akron specifically, then they aren't about Akron; they are about the county, which includes Akron. Akron being the largest city does not mean it includes the entire county. The only sources mentioning Akron specifically either come from the State of the City address (which simply mentioned a grant to help rid the city of meth labs...not significant) and the source about the task and drug forces that Akron is a part of but in no way the leader or organizer. All the data sources are using the county as the point of reference, which is reflected in the text of the section. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Akron coming up in the source is "dealing" with the city. As long as it mentions Akron, it is. Also the increase of locally made meth include Akron. Im going to use the night to do more research, its better than arguing.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's analyze the sources used in the current section:
 * This source, though short since the entire article is not shown, does not mention Akron. It would help to see the entire article though.  It only mentions Summit County.
 * This source only mentions Akron once, but it is not significant as it simply quotes someone from who lives "in Akron's Kenmore Neighborhood" who agrees with the Summit County Drug Watch's assessment.
 * This source is the list. We've discussed how this can and can't be used.  It would be one to keep a mention of the high number of sites in Akron in this article.
 * This source predates the Ohio.com sources, so it's not a response to those situations. It doesn't give the impression that the meth problem in Akron is anything abnormal; only that a grant was received to continue to "work with other agencies and jurisdictions" to "rid the city of meth labs."
 * This source is from Summit County and mentions the Akron PD working with the county drug force (which includes basically every PD in the county) in two areas. It is still, however, almost exclusive in using the county in presenting data and makes no mention of specific cities having a major problem.  One thing I noticed, however, is the publication is dated 2005, so it too is prior--and not a reaction--to the data in the Ohio.com article.  This is also another (and earlier) mention of "Meth Capital of Ohio" for the county.  It does have a map, but again it's dated 2001-2005 and it shows quote a few locations in--but also out--of Akron.
 * I think a mention of this can work in this article (or the Crime article) as I've said before, but the bulk of this should be in the Summit County article whether it stays here or not. Basically the sources need to talk about Akron directly like "Akron has this many meth sites" or "Akron has the highest number of meth sites in the country" or something like it.  Mentioning it in passing is only because of it being the largest city in the county or working with the APD.  None of these sources directly address Akron; they address the county as a whole.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I explained my edits to the Crime section multiple times and in the edit summaries. Once again you are back to restoring sources that aren't directly related to the subject and info that is not in the sources. Saying "Akron has a major meth problem" is an opinion unless there is a source that states that because it is a POV statement. The source about Hells Angels simply states that the group sold meth in Akron; in no way does it imply that Hells Angels started some kind of meth epidemic: "OMGs such as the Hells Angels also distribute methamphetamine in the state. The Hells Angels is active in methamphetamine distribution in Akron and Cleveland.." That's all it says. Nothing about Akron having a "major" meth problem. Same is true about "mainly due to Akron". That is your own analysis (i.e. OR); there is nothing in the article that states that, so it isn't fact and shouldn't be here. The stats it cites are for Summit County anyway, again, only partially relevant here. Further, you have restored awkward wordings like "the city's county" when what I had was properly sourced and weighted. The city's meth problem has no sources that indicate it is anything nationally significant; it is one aspect of Akron's crime that stands out. Any sources I removed aren't directly related to Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Threeblur you would save yourself and us so much time if you didn't keep reverting everything because in your effort to restore your information, you are also restoring things that still shouldn't be in the article. You seem bent on having a "Meth problem" section.  While your latest "copy edit" is a step in the right direction, the section is still not really that big and contains incomplete sentences like "In 2008, Summit County, which ranked third in the nation in the amount of meth sites and is long reputed as the "Meth Capital of Ohio".  Again, by itself, this statement and its source is irrelevant to this article since the article is about Akron.  Having a three paragraph crime section not only makes sense, but it also looks better than having a subheading for every paragraph.  But even the beginning of the meth paragraph is a guess on your part since there is no source of when the Hells Angels started distributing meth in Akron and Cleveland, nor does the source attribute the root cause of the problem to them.  That's why it's best not to speculate and that's why I have been insistent in removing it.  What I did to edit that section was to make sure the info in the article actually matched the sources.  --JonRidinger (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since editing the problems myself just seem to be wasting time, the opening to the section is still not in the sources as it makes it sound like the source states the Hells Angels began the drug problem when the source simply states they "are" (as of the report which appears to be around 2000) distributing meth in Akron and Cleveland. It doesn't even say other gangs were distributing in Akron, just in the state (see quote I used previously: "OMGs such as...").  There is nothing that states it was the first time.  Further, the only other stat that shows a "meth problem" in Akron is the federal listing of properties which only goes from 2004-2009, so there is nothing to show there was any type of problem in the 1990s or early 2000s.  Remember too, the list only shows registered meth sites (not arrests or even active meth labs) and one of the articles actually talked about how they are classified.  "The Web site can be misleading because addresses are listed even if a property never served as a meth lab. For example, meth equipment could have been dumped on the front lawn, but the address is listed as a meth site."  That is why I stated "Between January 2004 and August 2009, the city had significantly more registered meth lab sites than any other city in the state."  You could also include "In the 1990s Hells Angels began distributing the drug in Akron and Cleveland."  The only problem there is that the study is old so there is no way to determine of they still do or how widespread it is/was.  I wouldn't include the Hells Angels ref just because there is no verification they began the meth problem in Akron; the source only goes so far as to state they were part of meth distribution.  That is also why I had written "...helping Summit County to continue to be known as the "Meth Capital of Ohio.""  This keeps the focus on Akron but connects it to the "Meth Capital" since no source states conclusively that Akron is the main cause of that dubious title. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

University of Akron
I see I started something with my use of the University of Akron in the header and deleting the part about graded schools starting in Akron. There are a few issues here. First, except for the first sentence, the first paragraph is all about Akron U. The topic sentence did not fit with the rest of the paragraph, as Akron U is not a primary or secondary school. I figured that since Akron U is the only university in town that I would put it in for the title. Seeing the change just made in the Kent article, and what was originally there, I would have no problem with "Higher Education". I just didn't think of that. I thought of something like "colleges and universities", which didn't make sense for Akron. Next, the part about graded schools should go with the Akron City Schools, not the university. Since it is also in the invention section, I didn't see a need for it to be in the article twice. I have more to say on the City of Invention section, but I'll do that in a different section. --Beirne (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was supposed to be a headingless opening, plus no other pages does that, and there is an article with the name already. The Kent article which had "higher education" only had one sentence which was about Kent State University.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to use "higher education" then say so. And no, the higher education section in the Kent article is by no means complete or big enough.  But your edits to that page only come up when there is a problem here and they're never constructive nor is how the Kent article set up perfect or even relevant here.  You insist on a separate heading for "Meth Capital of Ohio" but not the University of Akron or just a general higher education.  Interesting.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title to "Higher education". It doesn't make sense for the paragraph to be a sectionless opening, because it is all about Akron U except for the original topic sentence that didn't fit.  --Beirne (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt want it but it is better than "University of Akron". Those are personal attacks, but besides that, they are constructive, and i didnt say the Kent article was perfect but it is relevant to this as you made New York in your arguement. You state i want it to be named "higher eduaction" but then change to i dont, in the same comment. Interesting.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Randomly jumping to the Kent article and renaming a section like that is disruptive; it did nothing to improve the article and appeared to be done to make some kind of point and/or in retribution. When your edits to that article only come when a disagreement comes here and every one of them there has been reverted, then yes, I am justified in referring to them as disruptive.  And by the way, the "Higher education" section in the Kent article has three sentences, not one. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup process
I have tagged the article for cleanup because of the numerous "citation needed" tags throughout as well as an enormous amount of duplicate information and general organization problems. Hopefully we can get some work done in correcting the problems and improving this article. The more I read it, the worse shape I see it's in. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've started doing some cleanup.  I hate to say this but I think it will take ripping out major parts of the article and then rebuilding it.  --Beirne (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned out film and TV section
I have removed most of the film and TV section. I used two factors in deciding whether to keep the movies or shows. One is from the In Popular Culture guidelines in Wikipedia. If nothing is learned about the city from watching the movie or show it is not worth entering. As far as I know none of the shows listed where the person was born in Akron actually conveyed any information about Akron itself. The other factor was whether I could find a good secondary source for the fact. I found a review for More than a Game, and a clear mention of My Name is Bill W. taking place in Akron so I included them. I left out All the Marbles, because I couldn't find a good secondary source. I didn't count IMDB as it is tertiary and disputed for location information. I actually do know the movie was partly filmed in Akron but need proof for here. I cut out The Instructor, which was clearly filmed in Akron and shows a lot of it, because of the same secondary source standard. The secondary sources are required partly to confirm notability, and The Instructor was a real obscure film. I didn't add The Dead Next Door for the same reason. --Beirne (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My edits were reverted without a reply here to my points. I have added the "in popular culture" tag to the section, as it has little non-trivial content.  --Beirne (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What a surprise. Most of this section was trivia and I was happy to see it removed.  Once again, please read WP:BOP.  The editor that wants to add info is the one who has the burden of proof to justify why it should be there.  It is not the responsibility of the editor who feels it shouldn't be there to have to prove his case.  --JonRidinger (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Menches Brothers
I removed the claims about the Menches Brothers. As much as I'd love to have Akron be the origin of these foods, I can't find any good references beyond the Menches saying that they invented waffle cones, caramel corn, and hamburgers. I don't mind if they get back in there with solid references, but I'm not finding them so far. And claims by the city of Akron don't count. --Beirne (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The removal was reverted without a reply in this section. I have added Dubious tags on all three claims.  --Beirne (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took out the Menches Brothers claim again. The new reference was to a blog, and while this is common Akron lore, it is unclear if there is any proof beyond the Menches family's claims.  Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the hamburger was in New York and the caramel corn in St. Louis and the Menches were from Canton, so the ties to Akron are minimal if at all.   --Beirne (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see another try was made at the Menches Brothers. I put failed verification templates on the waffle cone and caramel corn claims because both references merely said they were one claimant to be the inventor.  The Menches don't really belong here at all, though, because they did their supposed inventions elsewhere and they are from Canton, only living in Akron later on.  --Beirne (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now the word "disputed" is at least put in for all three foods. The statement does not have clear relevance for Akron, though.  The inventions were done elsewhere.  Also, as I stated several times, the Menches Brothers were from Canton.  They lived in Akron eventually, but the Ohio Historical Society puts them in Canton.--Beirne (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

added info and references
I added some info and references, also some encyclopedic data was removed without discussion got restored.--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I created discussion sections as I deleted each chunk of trivia in the article. Why don't you join in the discussion?  --Beirne (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We do not have to discuss every removal here. Everything that has been removed thus far has been trivial and/or unsourced, or duplicated elsewhere in the article. We should all be focusing on trimming the article down, not adding more info, especially trivial stuff like Akron being the 81st largest city in the US based on the 2000 census among others. Also, take the time to put any sources in the proper citation template rather than just a bare link. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A discussion was not made for all of it from what i can see, but i will look over the talkpage. I know not for everything but some of the edits removed data the was fine for thid article. Im currently in that phase, thats why i didnt do an entire restore. If i did that then my apoligies and will fix you point out.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you did was close to an entire restore, which is why the non-Latin text was corrupted and Perkins turned back into Perkin's. --Beirne (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also i have other pages im currently working on with home made sand boxes, so i might be lagging in response time.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not our responsibility to wait for you. We will continue editing as needed.  --Beirne (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt say it was. I encourage you... --Threeblur0 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2008 estimate
Why was the data using the 2008 population removed from the infobox and the intro? It seems it was removed so the list that shows Akron as the 81st largest city in the US could be included (which uses 2000 census numbers). The 2000 census should be mentioned, but the most recent estimate should also be mentioned. Further, 81st largest is not significant. 5th largest in Ohio...OK we can include that, but 81st largest in the US is no big deal, especially since it's largely out of date now anyway. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the Cleveland article and others, contains the 2000 estimate. 33rd dosent seem like a big deal neither but both are atleast in the top 100.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cindy George
She is not mentioned in the history. She is the Ted Bundy, OJ Simpson, or John Hinckley of Akron. She should be mentioned but we shouldn't say that she's a murderer because her conviction was overturned. That doesn't mean that she didn't do it but legally we can't say that she did. JB50000 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * She was mentioned in the picture of Tangiers, which her husband owned, not her; having an entire section is a bit much and is not even close to the exposure of the OJ Simpson or anything like it. Remember, something being significant to Akron locally doesn't always translate into a notable event for an encyclopedia.  --JonRidinger (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you say it is already in the article? I can't find it or the picture of Tangier Restaurant. JB50000 (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may have been removed since it was tangientally related to Tangiers (as I said, there was a long discussion about it and sources stated that Cynthia George's husband owned Tangiers). As for the trial itself, it appears to pass notability from the sources I see, though not nearly as notable as some of the more publicized trials mentioned above.  Perhaps an article about Cynthia George (which currently does not exist) would be more appropriate than sticking it here.  It would be one thing if the trial brought a media circus to Akron or greatly affected the community in some way, but it didn't; it merely received some attention from national networks mostly because of Ms. George being former Mrs. Ohio.  If anything, I would recommend gathering more sources and starting an article about Ms. George, then having her mentioned in the List of people from Akron, Ohio similar to Sam Sheppard and how he is listed at in the Notable natives section at Bay Village, Ohio.  If you've never started an article before, be sure to check out the Notability guidelines, reliable sources, and citation templates.  --JonRidinger (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had some bad experiences with people trying to delete my articles. Rather than create a Cindy George article, how about 1-2 sentences in the Akron article?  I'll insert something and see how you like it. JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took Cindy George back out. While the article does need more 20th century history, the Cindy George case was trivia.  It may have gotten some national attention, but so did the sewers exploding and the manhole covers flying.  There may well be people interested in the trial and Jon has the right idea on you doing an article on the case.  --Beirne (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only thing I would add here is that I would do an article on Cynthia George instead of the trial itself, much like Sam Sheppard (though with much better sources!!). The reason the George case got attention is because she was somewhat notable locally with the George family and nationally as Mrs. Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your feelings here. I reverted it because it really doesn't fit and it had no sources.  The overall article needs a major rewrite and editing process as it contains a lot of organizational problems and duplicate info among other problems.  One suggestion I have is using a sandbox to create an article on your own before publishing it.  That way you can get feedback from other editors as to whether it will survive getting deleted.  There's really no reason why anyone should create stub articles.  If you've had a lot of back luck with articles, it's likely because of notability concerns and/or adequate sources.  I'd be happy to help where I can.  My concern here is that it isn't that significant to the overall history of Akron, but is more a recent event that involves someone who lives/d in Akron. The key here is including information that is directly related to the city of Akron, not every instance where Akron is mentioned or everything that may have happened there.  If you can't find enough reliable sources to create an article about Cynthia George, there's a good chance she isn't notable enough to have an article and thus really shouldn't be mentioned here. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thought I reverted it, but I see you did. We must have been working at the same time.  The advice on using the sandbox and getting feedback is good.  --Beirne (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem determined to include something about Cynthia George despite two other experienced editors already explaining why it really doesn't have a place here. Please understand that Wikipedia articles aren't simply collections of everything about a certain subject.  As an editor, we have to determine what is notable and what isn't in helping a reader understand the main subject, which is the city of Akron.  Something having a source does not mean it should be in this specific article or anywhere for that matter.  We also have to make sure statements we include are supported by the sources they have attached to them.  For instance, stating that the George trial brought Akron publicity isn't really accurate unless the media did some type of coverage of the city itself.  Simply mentioning Akron as the site of the trial isn't significant, any more than LA "got publicity" from the OJ Simpson trial.  The reason the George trial got notabilty had nothing to do with Akron; it had everything to do with Cynthia George being who she was.  As for the other info in the Recent history section, much of it is trivial, meaning it really doesn't belong here and appears to have been placed there as a way to include the Cynthia George case (which itself states she was the "wife of a local Moroccan themed dinner club").  If you don't want your articles and additions of information deleted so much, become familiar with What Wikipedia is not and the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  Right now this article needs to be trimmed and cleaned up, not further expanded.  --JonRidinger (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jon. Even in Akron terms the trial was not that significant, much less national.  And the history items added before it are even less notable.  --Beirne (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We should not hint to article ownership. There are many, many reliable sources about Cindy George, more than some of the other referenced facts in the article.  This article is in great need for history since 1915.  The problem with the history section is that it is grouped into themes.  Akron is more than those narrow themes.  There has to be a section of history outside of those themes.  List the events for that section and you will probably find that Cindy George is in the top 10.  If not, then I agree with leaving out the less notable of a list that we havent made. JB50000 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To help, feel free to add to or adjust to the list of historical events after 1915 that is not included in the themed sections.

1. Cindy George Murder Trial and overturning by the appeals court. 2.

Following Wikipedia policies on Notability and What Wikipedia is Not to prevent cruft, trivia, and non-relevant material is not an issue of article ownership. Be careful with "many many sources" as having a bunch of local sources (which most of the sources likely are) does not equal notability nor relevance to this specific article. I live some 10 miles from Akron and heard almost nothing in the local news about this trial, so it's a stretch how widespread or important it was. Simply being mentioned in the news briefly, even nationally, does not mean something was notable. That's beside the point that any notability was because of Cynthia George being wealthy and a former Mrs. Ohio, not because of Akron, so the connection is simply her being from Akron (i.e. notable natives). I've already explained my position on where the material belongs and I do agree the article needs more history from more recent times, however, this is not it. Much of it is already scattered throughout the article (such as developments at Goodyear and the other rubber companies, expansion of the U of A, downtown developments like Canal Park and the Inventors Hall of Fame, etc.) and simply needs reorganized in a more sensible format and order. User:Threeblur0 is largely responsible for the current writing and format of the history, so you can discuss with him his rationale behind his choice for organization. Again, as I have stated and Beirne will likely agree, the article is in great need of an extensive rewrite, especially the history. Looking at the guideline for US city articles and at featured city articles (Cleveland, New York City, Ann Arbor, and Minneapolis are some examples) is always a good place to start. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would not use the sorry state of much of the article as a reason to say that Cindy George should be included. The article needs heavy editing and rewriting, but the one thing it does not need is more trivia.  In terms of it getting some coverage outside of Akron, go to nytimes.com and search for Akron.  You will find lots of thing are covered from Akron.  This doesn't mean, though, that everything that got enough national attention to be in the Times should be in the article, though. Until she has her own article I'm not even sure she counts for the notable natives list, much less the Akron article.  Redlinks in notable resident lists tend to get removed as non-notable.  If someone isn't important enough to get a Wikipedia article, they just aren't very notable.  --Beirne (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the notable natives. Generally, if they aren't notable enough for their own article, they aren't notable enough for the list, though there can be exceptions if the notability can be demonstrated with a source (an example is Lucien B. Smith at Kent, Ohio, who is the listed inventor of barbed wire).  Listing her on the List of people from Akron, Ohio would only occur if an article were actually created about her.  --JonRidinger (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Menches Reference
Is this a good reference for information given on it? http://webpages.charter.net/mtruax/1904wf/WF_Myths--Food.htm#icecreamThreeblur0 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That at least gets somewhat beyond the claims of the Menches family. Even here, though, their claim to the cone is just one of several, and the part about caramel corn and the hamburger is just mentioned in passing.  I'm also not sure of the validity of this page.  This is some new information, though, and might lead to better sources.  --Beirne (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good beginning point. But basically there is no authoritive website or other available source that conclusively states they did invent the hamburger as far as we can find thus far; it is certainly OK, though, to include it with "disputed" like it was before.  The only sources I could find that come across as "conclusive" are hardly neutral or third-party and are generally Akron or Menches promotional sites.  In glancing at some other articles which have Cuisine sections, they seem to be about the local cuisine (what types of foods are most popular) rather than how the city influenced eating habits around the country or world.  I think for the Menches brothers, them being from Akron is the main point (i.e. Notable natives and residents) since none of the disputed inventions took place in Akron.  Having a mention, however, in the tourism section with the Hamburger Festival would also be appropriate since it would explain why Akron has a Hamburger Festival.  --JonRidinger (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The new reference got me thinking of ways to look more for info on the Menches brothers. What I found gives them possible credit for the hamburger and ice cream cone, but it puts the Menches in Canton, not Akron. .  This is from the on-line encyclopedia of the Ohio Historical Society, so while a tertiary source, it is it least a source outside of the Menches family and the city of Akron.  There could still be plenty of discussion about their inventing the three food items, but it looks pretty clear that they were from Canton.  --Beirne (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

History section needs re-writing
The rubber history section is a good idea but it should add to history and not become a major part of the history. JB50000 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, making the history section chronological rather than thematic would be a good idea. That would then make it easier to tie together different things that were going on at point in time rather than isolating things like the rubber industry into their own sections. This would also then fix issues like the Riot of 1900 and the destruction of the City Hall being put in the rubber history section. --Beirne (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We need some ideas on where to start. For example, description of the decline in Akron but some resurgence in the past few years. Of course, Cindy George but that's been discussed so we can hold off discussion for now. What else? JB50000 (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some ideas:
 * A little more on the JEDDs, since the concept was pioneered in Akron. Talk about how Akron had grown via annexation in the past and then used the JEDDs to stabilize relations with the townships.
 * Perhaps more on Plusquellic, who has become Akron's longest serving mayor. The emphasis should be on his actions in a historical context, though, and we would want to avoid recentism.  The recall attempt would fit in here.
 * Changes in downtown over the years. This may get taken care of once things like Quaker Square and Canal Park are put into a chronological history.
 * --Beirne (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support a more chronological approach to the history broken into eras or general periods. That's what I've done in writing history sections at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, and Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio).  Even in a section where something is prominent doesn't mean the section only talks about that.  For instance, a section on the rubber industry could be "Rubber era" or something like it since it dominated much of Akron's history through the first half of the 20th century.  That doesn't mean nothing else can be mentioned in that section.  I have also proposed previously that a History of Akron, Ohio article be created which would make the history section here even more of a summary.  I would wait, however, until this rewrite happens and we see how large the section gets with relevant and notable history.  The key is including events that actually shaped Akron or affected the country rather than events that simply happened in Akron (which is why I don't really like the inclusion of the George trial...it simply happened in Akron; there's no evidence it affected Akron much at all even during the trial).  From my study of Akron history, you generally have the canal era which led to the rise of industry due to ease of transport.  That generally leads to the development of the rubber industry and the start of the Rubber era, which also included other advances by the companies as well as others.  This is also where the founding of the University of Akron (as Buchtel College) would be mentioned.  That is followed by the departure of many of the rubber companies and the decline of manufacturing beginning in the 1960s.  The more recent history includes the development of Akron as a polymer research center (the city and the University), some of the downtown and university development, the JEDDs as Beirne mentioned, as well as the effort to keep Goodyear headquartered in Akron among others.  I'd be weary of using "resurgence" because the city continues to lose population, so it's more of a POV term.  --JonRidinger (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good approach. I would add two more products to the history between the canals and rubber, and those are clay products and farm machinery.  Akron has remade itself a number of times and those will fit with the theme (without making it a ra-ra story about Akron).  --Beirne (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

JEDD
Very sketchy beginnings...

Akron was the first to make use of Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDDs). These agreements generally have the city provide water and sewer services to customers within the JEDD in the township and allow the city to collect income taxes from employees in that area. The townships benefit because the erosion of the tax base through annexation is prevented. Akron requested a law authorizing JEDDs so that it could set them up with its neighboring townships and end the contentious annexation battles it had been waging with them. The city now had JEDDs with all of its neighboring townships and can no longer annex new land.


 * JEDD stands for Joint Economic Development District. For this article, all we'd need are sources for the statement that Akron was part of the first one and a source already exists in the article, though it does not state Akron came up with the idea, they merely were part of the first one. An explanation of what a JEDD is or who it benefits isn't really needed since we can link to the JEDD wiki article. The key is to make this relevant to Akron and the relevance is simply that Akron was where the concept was pioneered and it later spread around Ohio. The reasons listed would be the specific reasons that Akron (and the townships it did them with) used in creating the JEDD, not the general reasons for JEDDs today. In looking at the JEDD article and the limited sources associated with it, JEDDs are unique to Ohio, so it isn't seem that important nationally or worldwide yet. Only a brief mention would be needed as part of a larger section (like we wouldn't have a subsection on JEDDs) and that it would later spread around the state and become part of the Ohio Revised Code. It's always tricky to keep from going off into tangeants in any article where too much detail takes the focus off the main subject. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying a bit about what a JEDD is would be useful because outside of Ohio and maybe even within no one will know what it is and the article should be able to stand on its own. As far as I know the reason given for Akron's request is the one that applied at the time. It is personal memory, though, so that is why I added the  tag.  A bit more background could be included, explaining how prior to the JEDDs Akron had resumed annexing land from townships but was finding many of them to be battles and wanted an alternative way to grow.  I didn't want to make the section even longer, though. I also left out that originally the law was so tailored to Akron that only Summit County could have JEDDs.  --Beirne (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now there is very little in the way of sources for JEDDs even on the JEDD article. I think an entire subsection on them here is a bit much since they are mainly an Ohio thing as opposed to some sort of national trend that began here.  Further, Akron was part of the first JEDD as a JEDD includes land in both the city and adjoining township.  Whether Akron invented the idea is not stated.  I think giving some background about the initial creation of the first JEDD (and later JEDDs) is appropriate and the initial and later results in how it affected local  development and annexation as well as it becoming part of Ohio law and spreading around the state.  Giving too much detail about what a JEDD is as it is legally defined here is spinning off into a tangeant focusing more on JEDDs that isn't needed here, especially since a JEDD article exists (but it too needs some major work), so basically if someone really wants to know what a JEDD is, they can go there.  Another reason JEDDs have become popular recently is due to changes in Ohio law around 2001 making annexation much more difficult.  --JonRidinger (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it calls for a subsection either, just a paragraph. And as far as I know, Akron invented or at least promoted and requested the concept. I don't think it came out of whatever the first township was.  It merits attention here because it was a creative idea initiated by Akron and it effected Akron's growth.  In the short term Akron got some free money through income taxes, but it is now landlocked as a result.  And yes, sources are needed so that the paragraph doesn't amount to original research and to back up the statements in general.  --Beirne (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that covers most of the paragraph. (http://usmayors.org/usmayornewspaper/documents/08_16_99/usm_0816199916.HTM). Unfortunately it has the year wrong, so I'd like to find a source that has things right.  --Beirne (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I was thinking...just a simple paragraph that explains basic background and the eventual results keeping Akron as the focus of the subject. The source provided above has the bulk of the information needed for the paragraph, though you may be able to find a correct year by searching Ohio.com for articles.  My one problem with the source is the mention about the schools.  School district boundaries do not necessarily coincide with city boundaries nor are they affected directly by annexations, so any annexations by the city would not create more potential students for APS unless the land was already part of the district.  Basically, school districts and their respective city are completely separate entitites (Akron, for instance, is not totally served by APS; the far northern part is in the Woodridge Local School District).  If that part of the initial JEDD agreement is mentioned, it would be a little tricky because the source isn't totally correct in explaining why it was included.  It was more to prevent income tax dollars already going to APS from being lost or shifted to whatever district the township in the JEDD was part of.  --JonRidinger (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the logic in the school paragraph. This page  (search for JEDD) mentions the 12% that goes to the schools to compensate for potential lost revenues, but I have no idea how JEDDs would affect the Akron schools.  I didn't think, though, that income tax dollars go to the schools, they are funded by property taxes (The CLCs in Akron are an special case and came after the JEDDs and are owned by the city).  --Beirne (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox
This is more of a personal note but page related. Versageek and other parties, to increase productivity i resorted to sandboxes on wordpad. Most of them ive gotten far one (including one of this page) but im holding off until they're perfect* or editting gets too drastic. I will be glad to corroberate with others on my sandboxes when beng aplied.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can create your own sandbox articles under your user account if you want to do this. Then other people can see them and they won't clutter up your talk page.  --Beirne (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikify tag at the top of the page is mainly meant for pages that have been created with little to no references, and barely has encyclopedic information. This page is encyclopedic and referenced to the point that more specfic tags can be place to help see and fix the problems not so easily spotted. Plus clean up has been since the existance of the tag, so removal would be correct.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The soapbox derby should be mention in the heading just like rock hall of fame (which is explained in other sections in cleveland). It is important and international enough to making the heading, which shouldnt be restricted by the article since it comes first.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned, in the third paragraph of the lead. It does not need to be mentioned twice in the lead.  --Beirne (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, i should have read.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a referenc to ...All the marbles, which in the cast part shows give the name of a person whose character is "Akron referee", this futher proves that the film was not only located but set in Akron.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Akron accessed for film many times?
The sentence "Akron has been accessed for film many times throughout the late 20th and early 21st century" has been put back into the article, minus the earlier inclusion of music. While Akron does show up as the filming location for some movies in IMDB almost none of them are notable, and Akron is a setting in even fewer films. Characters being born in the city in the story does not count there either. That's why the section naming the films got reduced to two, although All the Marbles could come back with a good reference. --Beirne (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, many more movies were filmed or set in Akron, i also found music, im making sure i dont leave anything out this time around.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More were filmed, but many were low-budget local films, which isn't notable. --Beirne (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Im referring to notable ones with and without wiki pages.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they don't have Wiki pages, they definitely aren't notable and shouldn't be here. Also, "accessed for film" and "been accessed by..." are unusual and awkward ways to state that.  A more standard way would be "Akron has been the setting for..." or "Many films have been shot in Akron..." and for music, "Several notable artists have come from Akron" or "Akron has produced several notable musical artists, such as..." I already explained previously why "accessed by the music industry" is not only awkward, but inaccurate. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they don't have Wiki pages, they may be notable but just havent had an article made yet, as in many cases, example is the More Than a Game one i created. Also i cant see to find or remember what page i got that way of wording it from.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they haven't had an article made yet, then wait to include it. This isn't like notable natives where notability can, on rare occaisions, be shown without a subject having a Wikipedia article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another questionable source is IMDB, for a few reasons. It is a tertiary source, which is generally not to be relied upon.  One reason here is that since it lists everything it does not indicate what is notable.  That is why I put the NY Times review as the reference for More than a Game, on the basis that if the Times reviews it the movie stands out.  The Instructor, which so far does not have a decent secondary source, has more text devoted to it than any of the other movies listed. The thing is, there are flop local movies made all over the country, and The Instructor is one of them.  BTW, the latest changes make the film section more confusing.  My edit to it distinguished what was filmed in Akron and what was set in Akron, which aren't always the same.  The current version lumps the two together.  It also makes a big deal of Dance, Girl, Dance, which apparently only starts in Akron before the story moves to New York.  This is another case where the movie takes place somewhat in Akron but doesn't say anything about the city.  --Beirne (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something about IMDB because using it as a source is certainly questionable as IMDB does not cite any of its own sources. Being on IMDB also does not equal notability as any movie and actor/actress can be listed there.  Also, Beirne is right, the movie section is generally for movies that take place mostly in Akron and/or had a significant amount of the shooting done in Akron.  In other words, movies that really spotlight the city as opposed to merely mentioning it.  Remember, everything in the article is to help the reader understand the subject better, not champion the subject.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon's last statement sums up a lot of the issues we have been having. Filling the article with trivia to try to make Akron look better makes the article less useful and it makes Akron look worse because people from other cities will recognize fluff. Akron isn't expected to be Hollywood.  Mentioning the few notable movies is enoufh. --Beirne (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
Please stop removing the cleanup tag. This is placed here to let readers and other editors know the article still has issues. Cleanup includes questionable facts and general writing styles as well as general organization, all of which are still problems here. In other words, the article still needs a lot of work. These issues have not been comepletely addressed, which is why the tag was placed there. An editor simply not liking it is not reason to remove it, and saying "addressed in talk" is not a suitable reason either especially since no discussion was made about the tag at all. Tags like that are to help the article, which this article still needs. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there is supposed to be some consensus on removing tags like this and it hasn't even been discussed until now. --Beirne (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:CLEAN: "Cleanup issues that this project covers may include wikification, spelling, grammar, tone, and sourcing." All of these are problems here, but especially the last three.  --JonRidinger (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikify tag at the top of the page is mainly meant for pages that have been created with little to no references, and barely has encyclopedic information. This page is encyclopedic and referenced to the point that more specfic tags can be place to help see and fix the problems not so easily spotted. Plus clean up has been since the existance of the tag, so removal would be correct.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is still lots of cleanup to do, of the sorts of things that Jon listed from WP:CLEAN. There should also be tags for specific issues, but not every issue has been tagged, and some things like grammar don't lend themselves to tagging.  --Beirne (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At a glance or shor reading, you can't see those problems directly due to most of the content being already wikified, and most if it not all issues are covered with indivisual tags, plus if there are infact other additional problems that arent easily seen, an indivisual tag being applied would make more sense to let it be known instantly where the problem is.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Threeblur, please take a minute and visit WP:CLEAN as I already linked. There is no restriction for the cleanup tag as you desribed, though it would also be appropriate in those instances.  An article being long with a lot of sources doesn't mean it is free of major cleanup issues.  We still have not addressed the organizational issues and the large amount of unencylcopedic information in the article, not to mention poorly, improperly, or un- sourced info that abounds.
 * The general grammar and tone issues are still widespread, hence the tag being at the beginning of the article rather than a slew of cleanup tags at every section. At the latter stages of the cleanup process we can then removed the main tag and place tags in individual sections.  But the article isn't even close to that yet as we have to continue fighting fancruft and other irrelevant information and giving explanations here. The fact you cannot see the issues doesn't mean they aren't there.  Experienced editors familiar with Wikipedia's quality standards will know what needs to be addressed. Also, being "wikified" is not really an issue.  It can be as part of cleanup, but is not the reason the tag was initially placed.  --JonRidinger (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Donna Jean Willmott
The fact that she doesn't have an article yet should be the first clue that she shouldn't be listed in the Notable residents section. Listing her at List of people from Akron, Ohio would be appropriate with her notability connected to FALN and the FBI most wanted list, but in the Notable residents section here, because it is a summary of a much larger list, the idea is to highlight the most notable of the notable residents. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is along the lines of what User:Versageek mentioned in the AN/I: "an encyclopedia isn't intended to be a collection of every single thing that may be related to a subject. It's suppose to be something that one can read for a quick overview of important facts about a subject, a starting point for research.." --JonRidinger (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of bad references
I've been going through references, seeing which ones are reliable and which ones support the statements they are supposed to support. I'm surprised at how many are failing. I went through and got the easy ones first, but then I look further and found ones that are supposed to support obvious facts don't. By now I suspect just about every reference. They aren't all bad, of course, but there is little reason to assume that any of them are correct. I suggest that as anyone edits the document that they verify the references they come across, and if anyone is adding material they should use reliable sources. --Beirne (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed the same thing. I just removed the source claiming Highland Square to be "eclectic" because it was simply a copy of the article from Wikipedia, Akron neighborhoods, and clearly stated so at the bottom of the page.  Wikipedia can never be a primary source for another Wikipedia article as we've discussed before.  The biggest problem here is that this is making more work for other editors because we're having to go check every source that's added to make sure it not only says what the article is claiming but that it's an actual reliable source and not some blog, ad, or a mirror site of Wikipedia. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Threeblur, I already explained the Highland Square source. Because it simply quotes the Wikipedia article, it is not a reliable source on its own and can't be used in any way in this or any other Wikipedia article.  If there is a reliable source for that claim in the Akron neighborhoods article, then find it and use it.  However, I have serious doubts as to how much of a tourist destination Highland Square actually is.  The sentence in the Tourism section says nothing about it being a tourism destination, just an unsourced claim that it's "eclectic".  Eclecticism does not necessarily equal tourism.  In other words, do people really come from all over to see Highland Square?  Considering how run down it is, I'd say no.  In fact, the "famous" Theater is likely to be torn down soon.  Be careful again of WP:BOOSTER which is something the WP:USCITY guideline warns about.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Highland Square
Run down is an opinion, i also think all of Kent that isnt primarily surrounding the university is run down, also some parts on campus. Also "likely" isnt a wikipedic term Jonri, and "soon" put with it definitly is not.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think parts of Kent are run down too, but I'm not trying to pass them along as "tourist" destinations or "eclectic" so once again you introduce irrelevant points and try to make it personal. The fact the theater is slated for demolition is evidence it is certainly *not* a tourist destination, nor is Highland Square.  And your last point makes no sense as what I said was on a talk page, not in the article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the Buchtelite really distributed around Akron?
The article says: "The Buchtelite, printed by the University of Akron, is also distributed throughout the city." Is this true? I've never seen it anywhere except around Akron U. --Beirne (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. All I could find in searching the web and UAkron.edu was simply that it's published twice a week during the spring and fall semesters here, page 7.  It is certainly appropriate to include mention of The Buchtelite in the media section of this article, but whether it's distributed "throughout the city" is another issue. I would say that's probably inaccurate.  Perhaps it is available at certain points off campus (I know the Daily Kent Stater does that, so it wouldn't surprise me), but "distributed" makes it sound like there's some kind of subscription-based delivery.  --JonRidinger (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm thinking, so I'll fix the sentence. --Beirne (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting and editing
Jonri, I would like to warn you and frequent editors of the that reverts of this page has already pass three and the day is barely half over. Also Run down is an opinion, i also think all of Kent that isnt primarily surrounding the university is run down, also some parts on campus. Also "likely" isnt a wikipedic term Jonri, and "soon" put with it definitly is not.

Plus since the page i changing alot i will put the sandbox form by the end of the day.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverts are for specific instances only. The 3RR is not simply against using undo three times during the day; it has to be the same item.  And no, none of my reversions have been at three for any specific instances.  Your addition of the "A" section not only had a non-relevant random title, but was separate from the initial comment it was responding to, which is why I moved it.  It was moved to a logical location so others reading it would know what you were responding to.  Your arguments of "messing up the archive" hold no water (especially since this is not an archived discussion yet).  You are in no position to be "warning" any other editors with your continued addition of bad sources and trivial info.  And once again, your comments about Kent are *completely* irrelevant.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blue Santa
I am not sure the Blue Santa source is totally reliable, but for now I think it's OK. I'd rather see something a little more neutral than the museum that benefits from the history. One problem for sure is this statement: "In the 1980s there were gentlemen on the other side of Akron looking for new uses for rubber." It jumps from the 1890s to the 1980s and then back to "By 1929 there were over 130 Akron area companies making and selling all types and styles of inexpensive toys to children all over the world."  I'm going to guess "1980s" is a typo, possibly for 1890s but there's no way to know for sure. It's definitely not 1980s since most of the rubber industry was long gone by the 1980s. I took out the years and just put "later" since we don't have an exact date. I also replaced "invented" because it's a bit strong since Dyke didn't invent the marble, he simply was the first to mass produced them. The source doesn't specify that he invented the mass production process for marbles either. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blue Santa also says that the other people in Akron invented "rubber baby buggy bumpers", which is a tongue twister and not a real thing, which puts into doubt the seriousness of the article. Also, crediting the rubber products to "gentlemen on the other side of Akron" is way to vague to be useful here.  --Beirne (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to culture
I removed several items, mostly from the beginning of the culture section because they really don't do anything to describe the culture of Akron. According to the guidelines from WP:USCITY, the culture section should: "include a description of the cultural aspects of the city, such as points of interest, museums, parks, mentions of the city in the popular entertainment, etc. Try to minimize the use of peacock terms in this section." For instance, mentioning David McLean isn't part of Akron's culture. He is a notable native. The same is true with LeBron James. Any mention of LeBron James should be in the Notable natives section as I would venture to say he is currently the most well-known Akronite and is a product of Akron culture. In looking at the typical featured articles used as examples, New York City and Cleveland, NYC has a little bit about things that influenced the greater American culture, but all are notable with their own wikipages; they are actual cultural movements (not individual people) that spread across the country from New York. The Cleveland article is subdivided into the various cultural destinations in the city. Simply mentioning famous people who were part of American pop culture doesn't help the reader understand anything more about the culture of Akron. Even the mention of Highland Square was random, along with the fragment about Akron hosting some of the 2014 Gay Games (like the two are related somehow). We always have to look at the info either already there or that we are considering adding and ask ourselves if it is helpful in understanding the subject better or is it just there for promotional reasons or plain boosterism? I also made some grammatical corrections, such as "all-year round" which should simply be "year-round". --JonRidinger (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks better. For LeBron James, one thing that would help would be to move sports out of the culture section.  It isn't in there in the WP:USCITY guidelines, and while it is put there in some well-done city articles, it really doesn't make sense. Sports and culture are different things and there is no shortage of 2nd-level headers. --Beirne (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Isnt being a gay a lifestyle, which would be culture?--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gay is what people are, in this context culture is what they produce. --Beirne (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So i'll put what gay orientated events happen in the city and neighborhood along with it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What notable gay-oriented events are there? The mentions I removed were removed because they aren't related.  The 2014 Gay Games have no relation to Highland Square besides the "gay aspect".  And remember, Akron is hosting just a few of the events as part of Cleveland's bid, not in or because of Highland Square.  It's a future sporting event, not a manifestation of Akron culture.  Even as the host, you'll note it is not mentioned in Cleveland's culture section, in fact, it hasn't even been added to the Other sports section.  You need to tie in the gay neighborhood with the rest of the culture, not just a random mention that Highland Square is a gay neighborhood.  That really doesn't say anything about the culture; it's much more of a demographic than anything.  Having a gay community is not unique or unusual, especially for a city the size of Akron.  You would need some reliable sources indicating why Highland Square is a major part of Akron's culture versus another one of Akron's neighborhoods.  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See, now atleast i have insight to why (thats what happenes when you discuss). I thought a culture sections was meant to list all types of culture that take place in the city also, not just its overall look. Now we can make progress slowly but surely, seeing what belongs instead of rushing to remove data.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about rushing to remove data. I gave a lengthy explanation as to why the info I removed was removed based on Wikipedia policies and examples in better developed articles, just as I and Beirne have done throughout this process. That is hardly "rushing" nor was there a lack of discussion.  Just because you restore the info before participating in the discussion does not mean there was no discussion.  The real discussion needs to happen before information is added especially since it's evident you're not totally sure about what should and shouldn't be included based on your comments.  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, i was talking about how you and Berne were startng off the day removing data without startng discussion [which your contribute page proves] which many times i end up proving should be there [which mines prove]. Yall also rush like when you removed the popularculture section with no explanation[or did you have one but didnt forgot to mention?] and when Bernie said a citation was needed for the marlboro man thing when on the page it said he was from Akron, that's just one of many Bernie's disruptions lately. Anyway im done with petty side arguements, im a wikipedia editor on here.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been discussing this stuff for ages. Just because it remains for a while doesn't mean that you have proven that it should be there.  Some times what you write is valid, but many times not, for reasons we have discussed a lot here.  Regarding the Marlboro Man, nothing in the NY Times obituary  you posted mentions Akron.  I've read it multiple times and searched for Akron with my browser.  It is not there.  --Beirne (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

<I think Threeblur meant there was mention of him being from Akron on the Wikipedia article about him and that mention had a source. Even if it does, it still shouldn't be in the Culture section and really he should only be listed at List of people from Akron, Ohio if he isn't already. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What Threeblur wrote about the Marlboro Man said that he was born in Akron and he used the NY Times article as a reference. While I actually believe that he was born in Akron, the reference did not say that so I put in the Failed verification tag. I agree, though, that it doesn't belong in the culture section to begin with since the Marlboro Man has nothing to do with Akron. --Beirne (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding you (Threeblur0) "proving" things should stay, that is rare indeed, though I can't remember or find a specific example of you actually proving (i.e. with valid examples and citing Wikipedia policy) something should stay that Beirne or I feel shouldn't be here. Most times we just focus on something else for awhile or we try to work with you because it's not worth an edit war. And remember, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants info to stay, not on the editor who wants it removed (see WP:BOP). Beirne and I are significantly involved with and edit more articles than just this one, so inactivity on our part should never be interpreted as you "proving" anything. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took Highland Square and the Gay Games back out of the culture lead. Saying it is a gay community is OK for the neighborhood section, but the culture section is about the creation and display of culture, not culture in the personal sense.  The Gay Games work fine in the sports section but not culture.  Plus, putting Highland Square and the Gay Games in the same sentence didn't work because the two things aren't related.  --Beirne (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took out the new statement about Highland Square. It said one neighborhood, Highland Square, is gay-friendly.  That implies that the others are not, which is at best unknown.  Also, saying it is listed as such is meaningless without a reference to a valid list.  --Beirne (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took out the latest version as well. The claim is more accurate, but it is just dropped at the end of the paragraph with no context.  It is just a random fact.  It fits better in the neighborhood article, which I should have said instead of neighborhood section.  In fact, the fact is already in the neighborhood article and is stated much more clearly and in context.  It could stand a reference but that's a whole other article full of issues.  There is another reason I took it out, too.  It used a Wikipedia page as its source, which we have explained many times is not valid.  Even with a valid reference, though, there isn't any reason to just drop the sentence into the article without context.  Without context, it is like if you just said in the middle of a conversation, "did you know that Highland Square is a gay-friendly neighborhood?".  They might say yes, but then wonder, "so what?".  --Beirne (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable natives
Keep in mind in removing the notice to not add any more names to the Notable natives section that the Kent article is not a good comparison. Kent's article is not only not a featured article (far from it), but it does not yet have a separate list of notable natives; in other words, the Notable natives section there is everyone that we know of from Kent, where Akron's and Toledo's (and other larger cities) have sections that summarize the most important natives and direct readers to the larger associated list, in this case List of people from Akron, Ohio. I say keep the section header because the list is mature and doesn't need any more. Don't use that as an excuse to expand the list further. Of all the sections in the article with issues, this is one of the few (if not the only) that doesn't have problems and is actually the way it should be. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to that only if we stop at reasonable number (since there is no rules setting a limmit i know of) 20 names. Plus the list need redoing to point out the most impornant and influential people of Akron and cover more catagories of profession like in other articles.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there are no limits, but the danger is the list here can quickly get out of control as editors add more and more people they think should be on the summary and not just on the main list. What other people do you think the section needs?  It doesn't need one person from every category, just a good amount of the most notable.  Personally, I think the way it is now is a pretty good size and scope.  The only recent person who really stands out to me is LeBron James. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Accept for continuing to get no where, i will just show you, dont worry i will place it here before the page, when you have over a hundred noticable people, 20 is a good portion to stop at than an odd number.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 20 is just as arbitrary as any other number, so it's really only a matter of your personal preference. You've already tried to add several names already.  I'm just not seeing who else really needs to be added.  Of all the sections in the article that actually need work, this is the one we shouldn't be worrying about much if it all.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording
the link which is on the pages says "Akron graded school system was imitated by other populous Ohio cities such as Massillon and in many other states as well." so would it be correct to say it was used across the United States? --Threeblur0 (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. All of the states could be in the Midwest, or the Northeast.  You can't interpret it out to boost Akron.  If you find a reliable source that says something like "across the U.S." then that would be fine.  --Beirne (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I was just looking at that myself and was about to edit it in the article. Because it stipulates "other populous Ohio cities" it's hard to even say "throughout Ohio" (especially since Ohio was largely rural at that time), let alone "across the United States." Because the article lacks specifics, for all we know, the many states could've all been eastern states or all midwestern states. Anything that makes it more general than what the source says is speculation. The wording of the book also makes it sound like Akron's graded system was one of other graded systems since it doesn't seem to indicate that it became the universal standard. I would simply say it spread to "several cities in Ohio and other states." --JonRidinger (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What defines "Across the country"?, to me its more than one state, also i did put "All across the Country" which still might be true. Where does "interpret it out to boost Akron" come from?--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Widespread, most states, and in all regions of the country. Saying something spread "across the country" makes it sound a lot better, bigger, and more important than to "several cities in Ohio and several other states."  In any case, the source doesn't say across the country, so you can't include it.  --JonRidinger (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Along with what Jon said, a key thing to keep in mind is that we aren't saying that it didn't spread across the country, we are saying that the reference does not support that statement. This is a big difference. --Beirne (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture
Was removed without discussion. Popular culture include entertainment and media, data in the section covered those items.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was explained in "Back to culture" as well as in edit summaries when it was removed. The reasons haven't changed.  We are not obligated to re-explain every removal of information over and over.  The burden of proof is on you, the editor who feels the information is critical to the reader's understanding of Akron, not on Beirne or myself.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No Threeblur0, entertainment and media are what go in the Culture section. The info in the popular culture section is redundant.  --Beirne (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason i put popular culture in the culture section because they intertwine in relation to Akron. While a commercial/advertisement might be popular culture, smoking is kinda culture. Also, in some cases, things or people from akron effect its and the country/wolrd popular culture/culture. Hard-to-word. Bernie, how is it redudant?--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the popular culture section back out. It covered three items.  Marbles and LeBron James are already amply covered elsewhere, and the Marlboro Man has nothing to do with Akron.  Just because an actor was born here does not put Akron in popular culture.  The "in popular culture" sections are supposed to list appearances of the city in popular culture, and Akron wasn't mentioned in a single Marlboro Man ad.  --Beirne (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And smoking being part of culture doesn't mean Akron influenced culture because an Akron native appeared in cigarette ads. There's no logical, direct connection there between Akron and smoking as a part of American culture.  Yes, WP:USCITY simply states that the section could have: "mentions of the city in the popular entertainment..." (emphasis added).  It doesn't say the products of the city or people from the city in popular entertainment. That pretty much means instances where a city is the location of a movie, TV show, or video game either as a main setting and/or site of filming of a notable movie, TV show, or video game.  It certainly isn't for every mention of a city in popular entertainment.  --JonRidinger (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As said before, if the data of something or someone is encyclopedic and different from other info about the something or someone, it should stay. Simply saying Lebron is a basketball player from the city in a native section, does not mean we have to exclude other information from the page. Again, i had popular culture in the culture section, where notable films are, but it was removed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Menches
Was removeed without discussion. They were residents of Akron and data was in the right section and referenced. Also the first sentence, which is true, keeps being removed without reason, and is similar to the featured article Cleveland. Also im sure cereal, oatmeal, etc. is eaten worldwide on regular bases. --Threeblur0 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do a search on this page. I've said a lot about the issues with the Menches.  I've been waiting for a reply and haven't gotten one.  And the first sentence was not true.  Schumacher got oatmeal from the Germans, the Menches did their supposed invention of the hamburger and waffle cone in other states, and the hamburger was in any case done when they lived in Canton.  So Akron hasn't really done anything for worldwide cuisine.  --Beirne (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just going to add that this has *certainly* been discussed multiple times. And no, it is nothing like the featured article Cleveland.  Further, the Cuisine section is for examples of local cuisine, not for attempting to show how a city influenced worldwide cuisine.  The Menches Brothers connection to Akron is that they lived in Akron for a time.  None of their disputed inventions occurred in Akron.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From Cleveland Cuisine section, "Cleveland's many immigrant groups have long played an important role in defining the regional cuisine." Further, The section read Cuisine and Culinary Scene. THe Menche Brothers connection to Akron is that they also ran a bussiness and became famous in Akron. There disputed invention are what they are mainly known for and entitled as, which you usually state when announcing someone.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Big difference. The Cleveland article says "regional cuisine".  That is not justification for saying "worldwide cuisine" for Akron.  There isn't a whole lot to even say about the region for Akron.  The Menches didn't live in Akron until some time after 1893.  As I've said numerous times, they lived in Canton when they supposedly invented the hamburger in New York.  The fact that they were living in Akron by 1900 is not real notable.  The are one of many claimants for the waffle cone, and according to the makers of Cracker Jack not the creators of caramel corn.  So Akron's contributions are the popularization of oatmeal in the US, which already existed in Europe and a couple of brothers who maybe invented some foods elsewhere.  This is not enough to support the statement about Akron playing an important role in worldwide cuisine.  I don't have a problem with having Schumacher in there for oatmeal in America, but by the time you qualify the Menches stories enough to make it accurate it will be long paragraph and won't say much of anything about Akron.  --Beirne (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, that is the problem, cultural things in Akron happen mainly on a bigger than city scale. They are still known to be disputed for them, which is notable. The fact that they effected Akron cuisine is notable. It's enough to say, Akron residents did, which it states.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know that the Menches did anything, and the fact that their claims are disputed makes them even less notable. --Beirne (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the first statement does not claim they lived in Akron or created it in Akron, and also, is true. Also, the fact that it is recorded that they may have, makes them notable.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But then we are left with having to say something like this: "The Menches Brothers, who moved to Akron sometime in the 1890s, claim to have invented the hamburger in the 1880s when they lived in Canton and were working at a fair in Erie County, New York. They also claim to have invented the waffle cone and caramel corn in St. Louis, but both of these claims are strongly disputed."  This doesn't say much about Akron and isn't worth the space it takes up.  --Beirne (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the sentence "Several residents of Akron have played an important role in defining the American cuisine." has been put back, with a claim that I am vandalizing the article. I took it out because it is not even supported by the paragraph it introduces.  Schumacher is fine, but the claims of the Menches are highly disputed, so the lead sentence is unsupported and possibly false.  To make it match the paragraph it would need to say something like "One resident and possibly two others...", which wouldn't be a very meaningful sentence.  --Beirne (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That isnt needed. Your statement saying i claimed you vandalized is false. Also i was about to agree with you but, they may have lived in Akron while disputedily nventing caramel corn in 1893.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

<---the entire first sentence that you keep re-adding isn't needed and isn't accurate or sourced. And yes, stating "Please keep unvandalizing data, atleast until discussion is over" in an edit summary sure sounds like you're accusing someone of vandalizing. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleveland's isnt sourced, but kept because the article paragraph supports it, just as here. Oh, i see now, i mean stop removing data that isnt vandalism.(realized after i should have put "non" instead of "un") Things arent always as they appear.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not much of a way to use "vandalized" without casting some kind of aspersions on other editors. In any case, I have changed the sentence to say "may have", just to make it more true while we discuss it.  The sentence is weak enough, though, that it still might as well be removed.  --Beirne (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well my way is one. Also, if the moved to Akron in 1890's that puts them here when they disputedly invented the cone in the 1900s, also the sentence now is refferring not just to the Menches brothers since you editted it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, you need to be more careful of how you word things if you didn't mean to accuse someone of vandalism or anything. Second, the sentence from the Cleveland article, which this article seems to have plagiarized with a few changes to make it for Akron, is largely irrelevant here.  Cleveland became a Featured Article over 2 years ago and has had countless edits since then.  Featured Article status should be permanent in theory, but is something that can be lost if editors aren't careful with updating and maintaining information and properly sourcing it.  That means just because something is unsourced there does not give you an excuse to add something unsourced here.  In reading the Cuisine section at Cleveland it's much closer to what the Cuisine section should be (focusing mostly on the most prevelant cuisine in Cleveland), though it has some claims that need to be sourced (which I tagged the section for).  So far, the only claim Akron has on influencing American cuisine is the breakfast cereal claim, and that has very few reliable sources even at breakfast cereal or Ferdinand Schumacher.  The Menches Brothers have a series of disputed claims that seem unlikely to be definitively solved any time soon, plus they weren't even in Akron when all (or most) were created.  Again, just because the Cleveland article or any featured article has a specific wording or section does not mean this article should also have it.  --JonRidinger (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, explain why the wording makes you think think that. Second, if its true, notable, and encyclopedic it isnt irrelevant here. In reading the subheading of the section, it says Cuisine and Culinary Scene. Um, again i bring lite to, they moved to Akron in the 1800s and the cone came along in the 1900s. Again, if its true, notable, and encyclopedic it isnt irrelevant here.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Using "vandalism" in an edit summary immediately sounds like you were accusing someone of vandalism. The fact it was so poorly worded only added to that assumption.  Bottom line: don't use "vandalism" in an edit summary if you don't want to sound accusatory.


 * What is irrelevant is using "it says this on the Cleveland article" as an excuse to include something here. Again, the cuisine section is to show what types of cuisine are most prevelant in Akron; same with culinary scene (most popular and notable restaurants).  The focus is on Akron, not on trying to make Akron look important.  --JonRidinger (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didnt use "vandalism", i used "unvandalizing". Actually it dosent, since i didnt put "vandalism". Bottom line: I didnt use "vandalism" in an edit summary and you should do more fact finding than erroneously assuming.
 * As Beirne said below, "unvandalizing" is a form of the word vandalism (though "unvandalizing" isn't an actual word). Don't use vandalize in any form if you don't want to sound accusatory.  Just apologize for the misunderstanding (if indeed that was the case) and move along rather than try to make excuses and place the blame on others for interpreting your comments the way they did.  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is irrelevant is the above split discussion, and probably me restating that i've been told by you to follow other articles before. Again, it is named Cuisine and Culinary Scene, and if was invented in Akron or by residents of Akron; it is prevelant to Akron. I know.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Unvandalizing" as a form of the word vandalism. Bringing up the term, in this case in the oddly worded "Please keep unvandalizing data, at least until discussion is over", basically means "stop vandalizing the article until we're done discussing it", meaning you accused me of vandalism.  --Beirne (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

<---We've gone over what was meant by using other articles as examples. *Never* did I say to follow another article in every way. I gave you examples of featured articles that can give you and any editor a general idea of what goes into and how to organize an article to make it good according to Wikipedia standards. Other editors and myself have stated multiple times that something being in a featured article does not mean it should necessarily be duplicated here. What you have done in many cases is cut and pasted material from other featured articles and then changed a few words to make it fit Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand Schumacher
The phrase "aka Oatmeal King" was not in any sources, even at his own article, which is all of one or two lines with two dead links for sources. Besides that it really isn't needed for this article anyway, plus we should avoid using common abbreviations like "aka". Second, the OhioHistory source about him does not state he created the first breakfast cereal. It simply states he created a way to use oats more for human consumption, so oatmeal is the obvious invention. The breakfast cereal article isn't much help as it lacks sources of its own, though it does not support the claim of him creating the first breakfast cereal either. I think Quaker Oats as a company had more of an impact on American cuisine than anyone listed thus far, though it's no longer in Akron, of course. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference check
This has a copyright at the bottom and dosent say it is copied from anywhere, looks original, reliable?--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what information you want to use from the posting, but it all looks like it should be available elsewhere, and once the job is filled this may be a dead link. --Beirne (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another, also im just asking for a clear "yes" or "no" when responding on references. (not to be rude)--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Think i found better polymer reference.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give the answer I want to give. This is a discussion page, and when I say no I want to explain why so that understanding isn't based on assumptions.  Regarding the conway.com link, I'd say no unless you are trying to say something historical.  I can't find a date for the document but based on the population numbers and mention of Bank One I'd say it is too old for the statistics to be useful.  --Beirne (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I marked the citytowninfo link in the article as unreliable. It is recent enough, but it is a tertiary source and there is no indication where the number came from.  For all we know it came from the same old article or from Wikipedia.  I have fixed the date in the reference and put an unreliable source tag after it.  --Beirne (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mature. Right, but you didnt say "no" so your comment is for nothing to me. It's ok, i figured stuff out.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the Newsweek link was put back, once again with the incorrect date from 2007. The article is from 2001, as you will see on the first page of the story. Nine years is a long time and we have no idea if the number is still accurate.  --Beirne (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time even using sources from 2005 for "recent" events because they're now 5 years old. A lot can happen in 5 years, especially in economic matters, so 9 years is stretching the value of a source for current events.  Anything since 2008 in economics can be vastly different.  The Polymer source would definitely need a more recent update or a disclaimer in the article "In 2001, the Akron area..." (which it has) but really a better source should be found ASAP.  It doesn't do much good to have outdated information in an article unless it's in a historic context.  The vast majority of information in city articles is focusing on "now" with appropriate history where needed for context.  Really, none of the citytowninfo or citydata sites (or anything like them) can be considered reliable because they simply collect data from unnamed sources, some valid, some not.  They're OK for people who want general information, but not for sourcing in an encylcopedic article because they lack sources themselves and I have seen plenty of similar sites that simply copy what is in the Wikipedia article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Economics
In looking over the guidelines at WP:USCITY I found something that could help in the organization of the Cuisine section. In the Economy section, it says: "Presumably 95% of the people in the city work for a living, what do they do? What industries/sectors can support so many people? Who are the biggest employers? How did the economy take form and change over time?" This would be an appropriate place to briefly mention the manufacturing past of Quaker Oats (among the many other manufacturing jobs of Akron) rather than in the Cuisine section. The Quaker Oats article would also be more appropriate than having a merger discription of the company in the Cuisine section. Right now, the way it opens mentioning Ferdinand Schumacher and the way his companies merged together really isn't relevent to what foods are most popular in Akron. Again, the main focus on the Cuisine section based on how it is in larger articles is to highlight the local cuisine (present-day); basically what are the most popular foods and some of the most notable restaurants. Simply listing some of the restaurants, as we have seen, opens it up for other editors to add their personal favorites and says nothing about local cuisine (like Tangier for instance...no one outside of Akron knows what Tangier even is or what kind of food it sells). Even in the aforementioned Cleveland article, the two notable chefs are simply mentioned as having contributed to the American culinary scene, but no details are given about them since they have their own Wikipedia articles. The focus is on the city rather than the notable residents. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lists
I have removed the link to the List of Akron baseball people twice because the list is for "people who have been associated with the Akron Aeros professional baseball team." When we use "see also" or main, it should be to something that is directly related to the section topic, like if it were pointing to the main article "Sports in Akron, Ohio". Since we wouldn't include a list of former Aeros players and managers in this article to begin with, why should we point readers to the list? If they want to learn more about the Aeros, there are articles written about the Aeros and there are links in the body of the section. The list of people associated with the Aeros doesn't really tell us anything about Akron; it tells us about the Aeros, who happen to be based in Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)