Talk:Interstate 81 controversy in Syracuse, New York

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Syracuse University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
This is an article started by a new user. Please note that it is still in its beginning stages, and should be given the opportunity to develop. Request for speedy deletion should be removed because this is article meets notability standards due to its significance in the Onondaga community. However the article does need to be categorized and linked to relevant articles. On another note, the claim that this article was written for promotional purposes is completely unjustified. I would suggest the creator of this article come to its defense as well AMDomG (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not meet our notability standards. --Rschen7754 06:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Any insight on the changes Ive made to date? What does everyone think about categorization of this article? Pcwarden1990 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Interstate 81 in New York
Generally WP:USRD topics do not have articles at the city level, and sourced content would be better presented somewhere in Interstate 81 in New York to help expand that article. The current title also seems somewhat POV. -- Kinu t /c  21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support—for the reasons given by the nominator. To paraphrase the the ninth Governor of Alaska, "merge, baby, merge!"  Imzadi 1979  →   21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The content in this article is a specific example of a general criticism of the design of the Interstate Highway system, that with the (mostly) elevated freeways it has served to divide once united neighborhoods and communities. As this is a complaint echoed coast-to-coast, but not given much coverage in urban Interstate Highway articles, I support the addition of this content. However, I'm not sure that creating a new article is the best place for it, when this could be used to expand an existing article. Most Interstate highway history articles focus on boring technical details and dates. This could be used to focus more on the human aspect. With that said, this content could be used to expand the I-81 in NY article, or the article on Freeway revolts which currently is a list of revolts, without much information on why people were opposed to the freeway construction. Dave (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - There is no reason this needs its own article when it can easily be covered in the Interstate 81 in New York article. This is similar to how Opposition to Maryland Route 200 was merged into Maryland Route 200.  Dough 48  72  00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that this was made after I deleted a similar but unreliably-sourced and POV-ridden section about this from I-81's article a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem like the quality of the sourcing has improved, nor has the prose been redone to conform to a NPOV. Merging is what would normally be done, but would merging this garbage into I-81 in NY really improve the latter article? –  T M F 13:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – I agree with the sentiment above. I also think this is an important aspect of I-81 NY that is going to need to be properly addressed before I-81 NY becomes recognized content.  To address TMF, I do not have a problem with temporarily "dirtying up" I-81 NY until the content of this article can be properly revised.  I prefer the info be all in one place, even if it is crap, rather than this article continuing to exist.  V  C  15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was worth covering, it would have at least one third-party source. As it's currently comprised, the best way to clean up the merged content would be to delete it. About the only thing that might be salvageable from this article is the "future" bit, which is ironic considering it's the only section not attributed to something. The "issues" section ranges from a redundancy with a RD to a POV rant, and the "Community groups" section is little more than a promotional bit. My hope is that whoever performs this merge, if it happens, uses some common sense and doesn't just dump the full contents of this page into the I-81 page. Doing so would unquestionably place undue weight on the portion of I-81 through Syracuse, a very small portion of a 184-mile regional freeway.
 * And I do have a problem with "dirtying up" an article when in all likelihood I'm going to be the one tasked with cleaning the mess up. –  T M F 16:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am changing my opinion to neutral on whether to merge for now. I agree that it is not fair to put the expectation on TMF to clean this mess up should this info be merged into I-81 NY.  I put forth my opinion before I knew this was related to the Wikipedia Ambassador program.  While I am disappointed in what I see so far and I disagree with the way in which the content was added, I am willing to give the authors and the program a chance to make revisions so the article follows Wikipedia's guidelines.  I think a week would be long enough to see if this article is going to become a useful contribution to Wikipedia.  V  C  19:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting a merger on the basis that this content can be salvaged. If it can, it should be cleaned up and merged into the appropriate article. Otherwise it is a POV-fork article which is the same problem we had wiith Opposition to Maryland Route 200. This article though could easily be sent to WP:AFD and be completely deleted though in its current condition. I'm disappointed that an article under any ambassador program isn't being created with an eye towards complying with basic Wikipedia policies, like WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I'm trying not to bite a newcomer, but at the same time, articles need to comply with our policies and guidelines.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC
 * I just would like to clarify that this article is still in the works. I understand that it is not a great article in its current condition, however I have been advised to continue edits  a page until an article is a finished product.  TwinsMetsFan if you could please stop your unhelpful remarks on my article I would appreciate it.  If you still desire to downplay the article at least give some advice on how to improve it since I am clearly a newcomer.-Pcwarden1990
 * I'm sorry, but the subject of the article is poorly scoped. --Rschen7754 06:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What these guys are trying to say is that you've picked a topic that inherently goes against the way we do things on wikipedia. That is, we don't fork out controversy, or start examining a state-wide route through a single city in that state. However, most of what you've written here (save for the few incomplete thoughts/sentences) would fit well into the rather short I-81 in New York article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is a place for two articles. Racepacket (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support there is no need for two articles. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this is quite ridiculous. If there are concerns about adding poor content to the I-81 NY article, of course, that should be taken into account as well. --Rschen7754 06:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment in oppposition On an intellectual level, I can imagine a merged article covering both a description of I-81 and also the Syracuse-specific issues. On a practical level, I am concerned that because I-81 in New York is built on the USRD mold, the merged article would become quickly trimmed back using a claim that the post-merger article gave "undue weight" to Syracuse. So in order to develop and expand content on this planning process and disputes regarding I-81 in Syracuse, we need a separate article.  If the title bothers people, perhaps it could be renamed "Interstate 81 in Onondaga County, New York". I would encourage Pcwarden1990 to expand the article further. Racepacket (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, this isn't just USRD, it's Wikipedia: Recentism. --Rschen7754 18:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is too focused recent events. However, the fight over I-81 in Onondaga County goes back to at least 1971:

I would respectfully suggest to Pcwarden1990 that he include all of Onondaga County as the scope of his article, and that the article include the earlier controversies. Racepacket (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential sources
In looking for possible secondary sources for this article, I found the following:

The idea of course, is to use secondary sources as much as possible. That this section of the highway is a matter of current public discussion is information worthy of inclusion in the larger encyclopedia, but in my personal opinion, the Interstate 81 in New York article would be improved by a thoughtful and appropriately written addition on this issue. Past information related to how/why/when/where the Syracuse section was built would help fill out the History section of that article. A "Future" section can be added to document what the state, city and public are discussing in terms of plans to change the freeway. Both sets of additions would be backed up by secondary sources for the controversial claims (and by "controversial", I mean any type of issue where there is disagreement) as required by our policies. I would discount the usage of primary sources, such as the ones currently in use. Using primary sources is allowed, but careful attention must be paid to how they are used. Any time opinions or policy positions are given, the source of that opinion or position must be stated, which is not currently done in the article. Specific people should be named where possible, "many people" should not. If specific names are not used, classes of people like "Syracuse residents" or "transportation planners", with those generalizations backed by secondary sources are permissible. I hope these suggested sources and comments help.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with this thought. I'm not saying that the I-81 in NY article is complete as it is now - it certainly isn't - nor am I saying that we shouldn't cover this issue. All I'm looking for is for the issue to be sourced to secondary sources and added in a logical manner that flows with or enhances the existing I-81 in NY article. This article is not sourced to the former nor would merging the contents of this article with I-81 in NY result in the latter, hence my comments in the section above. –  T M F 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another potential source, but one to be used carefully: It also lists several potential sources in its works cited.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Work on this article should focus on phasing out the various primary sources in favor of reliable, secondary sources. Footnotes 1 (Baik, Galster, Jeong, and Seokgi, Onondaga Citizens League), 5 (Highways to Boulevards Initiative at the Congress for the New Urbanism), 8 and 10 (Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council/The I-81 Challenge) are all published by groups directly involved with the controversy. There should be plenty of press coverage of this issue, if it's truly controversial, to allow the whole thing to be sourced to the media instead of using publications from the various groups.  Imzadi 1979   →   04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
The Federal Reserve is a financial institution. Any legislation related to it would probably not be related to Interstate Highways. Now a transportation bill would relate. The sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify the information.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Assistance
I've been attempting to keep tabs on this article, and make cosmetic improvements. However, the creator of the article has gone through and removed all of the cleanup tags. There are still several statements in the article that are either uncited or cited only to primary sources. There is also the issue referenced above related to the "Federal Reserve" statement; that sentence either needs a citation, or it needs to be changed. As of now though, I'm no longer going to be cleaning up the references. The article creator has been adding references (a good thing) but using only bare URLs to do so (a bad thing). It only takes a few moments longer to add the source's author, title, publisher and publication date to the footnote. If the source is online, an accessdate is also needed. That way if the link goes dead, others can attempt to find the link in an online archiving service.

The writing still needs copy editing for tone and cohesion. There are inconsistent usages of abbreviations in the article. The discussion on merging this article into Interstate 81 in New York has not been ended yet.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When mentoring students, there is a certain tension between letting the student learn how to do it and just doing it yourself. I am holding back from making major changes to the article to allow the learning experience to come to a conclusion. Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for deleting the footnotes, I just don't understand the major flaws within the article at the current time. I will stop deleting the footnotes, again my apologies. Pcwarden1990 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor Edits
You've been receiving feedback from the below and they are mostly positive. A big thing to improve on is to avoid colloquial language. You used the word "eyesore" in the first section but try saying unsightly. Also, add more pipe links to other Wikipedia articles if available. You can add a picture if you find one. Bonkong (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)