Talk:St. Louis, Missouri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

Archived discussion: Page 1, Page 2

Contents

[edit] disambig

there's a trillion things called St Louis. St. Louis should not redirect here, it should be a proper disambig page. thx 128.250.37.103 08:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately Astuishin appears not to agree. I asked him to explain his rationale, but he chose not to respond. I'd be all for changing St. Louis back to redirecting to Saint Louis (disambiguation), which is where Saint Louis currently redirects and where St. Louis redirected until recently. Is there a consensus? Dabarkey 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
People are more likely to be looking for some of the things named St. Louis than others, so I don't think redirecting right to a disambiguation page is most helpful. It seems to me that all of the people and places listed at the Saint Louis (disambiguation) page are all ultimately named after St. Louis IX. If any subject has the best claim to the St. Louis and Saint Louis name space I think it would be he. TMS63112 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir:

I was the force (recently) behind getting the article at Wikipedia known as Saint Louis changed to St. Louis. If you will go to the discussion page prior to this one, you will see lengthy discussion about it. Briefly: the spelling: "St. Louis" is the official and legal one. Various sources were searched to see if St. Louis or Saint Louis was preferable. It became instantly obvious that the geographic term is St. Louis. Below is the WikiCityPages statement of "nameing conventions:

"Structure (format for city template)

Each city shall be called by the common name of the city, e.g. Jackson, Mississippi, Des Moines, Iowa, New York, New York. All other possible common names for the city should re-direct to the main city entry. Ideally, it should be that every city has an entry titled in the CITY NAME, STATE NAME manner. New York City, for example, or other such instances should at least be in some way associated to a CITY NAME, STATE NAME entry so that a common linking standard can be maintained. (The proliferation of New York City entries shows, I think, the need for a naming standard specific to cities). In the event of a naming conflict (e.g. a township and a borough having the same name), it should be called by its city, county (with the word "County" removed), and state. Also if the location is a township only, you should attach the word "Township" to its name. (Example: Manor Township, Lancaster, Pennsylvania)." Mark Preston 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for helping to get the article title changed to reflect the correct spelling of St. Louis, Missouri. The problem this user raises is that someone typing "St. Louis" into a search box will get the article for "St. Louis, Missouri." They might be looking for some other place or person called St. Louis (or Saint Louis). Currently our only disambiguation note on the St. Louis, Missouri article directs people to an article on St. Louis County, Missouri. At very least, we should probably add a line to the top of the St. Louis, Missouri article directing people to the Saint Louis (disambiguation) page. Personally, I also think it is a little confusing that St. Louis and Saint Louis redirect to two different places. TMS63112 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, not this again. I am switching it back to point at Saint Louis (disambiguation). — GT 10:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime and Social issues

The section in this article on social and crime issues is not a summary of the main article Crime and Social issues of St. Louis, Missouri...it IS the main article. Either way, both of these need to be cleaned up. Could someone lend a hand in doing that? I'm not an expert on St. Louis, especially not its social/crime issues. So if soemone could pitch in with that, it'd be much appreciated. Metros232 14:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population

I updated the population with the actual 2005 Census estimates. According to the Census, St. Louis has an estimated population of 344,362. This information can be found here Ajwebb 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis sucessfully challenged those estimates back in March. The confusion on the population stems from the fact that the original 2005 figures were only just made official a few weeks ago. I've reverted the St. Louis population back to it's 350,000+ state. The challenge can't be found by following links, but can be found here. --Millbrooky 15:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good :). Thanks for the information. Ajwebb 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
For consistency purposes, I added a sourced citation next to the figure. --Moreau36 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colleges

This is an article on The City of St. Louis. McKendree College is not inside STL City boundaries (25 miles away) and is of no note nationally. It doesn't need a blurb dedicated to it on this wikipage. Please no self-promotioing of your minor Universities 20+ miles away on the WIkipage. Thank You. Gamer83 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of vandalism

I corrected some vandalism on this page, for some reason it's getting a lot of attention. If this continues, does anyone support a temporary disabling of editing by unregistered users? ERTBen 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I will be more than glad to support the disabling, but I must know what you are specifically referring to on this "Discussion" page, please.Mark Preston 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just look at today's edit history and it should be obvious what he is talking about. I have reported the offending IPs to Admins, however we should request protection/disabling of unregistered edits.Gamer83 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as of 28th Sept a huge chunk has disappeared including half the info box Kert01 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the difficulties of Wiki-ing is delay from contributors. In order to stifle vandalism, I vote AYE for a temporary halt to editing.Mark Preston 14:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...that happened over two weeks ago. The vandalism has ceased. We're not halting any editing anymore....Gamer83 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Gamer83. --Millbrooky 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Spam Discussion

I removed this link because it was a link to what appears to be a personal project "Wikipage". After looking at the Wiki it is very incomplete and it is not the only STL Wiki out there. I think it is linkspam and if anyone disagrees feel free to discuss it here. *WikiLou - St. Louis' Very Own Wiki Gamer83 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't mean to make anyone think that I was advertising a personal project. WikiLou is a new wiki for the St. Louis area. It is encyclopedic, and a great tool for the local people here. It's new, I'll give you that, but that's no reason to take it down, in my opinion. I have no personal stake in it, so I've got nothing to gain or lose here, but I thought it was appropriate on the St. Louis page. Especially seeing as there are links to a site about St. Louis history, and one to forums about St. Louis. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me. And I think it is important to note when a city or area has a wiki of it's own. The site has been live for about 48 hours, and has grown greatly since then. I'd love to hear other views of the issue. Thanks. --Mijunkin 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally, in every article for New Paltz there is a link to the last wiki I worked on: WikiPaltz, and no one has ever objected to those links being there. I think the free exchange of information that wikis foster is important, and being exclusive of local wikis seems to prevent this. --Mijunkin 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I have anything against your specific Wiki, it's just that I have seen multiple STL Wiki's that are each someone's own personal project. Once you post the link to yours, they'll feel the need to post theirs and it will snowball. We've had problem before with the STL wikipage becoming a linkfarm to people's personal STL blogs, websites and yes other wikis. This is why lately it's been somewhat restricted to official STL pages, or unique websites that are highly relevant to STL, like urbanstl.com, a one of a kind forum of massive scale with over 900 members and where many members of the city government post.Gamer83 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm just wary of excluding links to other wikis on any city's page. I've experienced the good a wiki can do for a community (in New Paltz, with WikiPaltz), but the only way to make these sites viable community resources is to do two things. The first is to advertise to the local community, of course. The second is to get other wikisavvy people to get to the wiki and make it the best wiki they can. The way to do the latter is to make it known on Wikipedia, in my opinion. And to be honest, I think that all the links to all the wiki's about STL should be on the St. Louis, MO page. Why hide them from the public? Maybe on their own page, something like List of wikis for St. Louis, MO, and link to that page from the main city page. I'd actually love to see that. Lets find a way to list them all on here. I think the public should know whats out there for them. And it's not like they're sites trying to sell them junk, it's other wikis trying to give them information. --Mijunkin 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The way to do the latter is to make it known on Wikipedia, in my opinion. — Your opinion is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox . Uncle G 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the wikis having their own page is a good idea. Set that up and the put a link to it in the article where you think it would fit. Otherwise in short notice the external link section will become cluttered.Gamer83 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I made List of wikis about St. Louis, Missouri, and put it under the "See Also" heading. Please add to it the other wikis that you've seen. Thanks a lot! I'm glad we came to a consensus. --Mijunkin 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How many wikis about St. Louis do you think there are that it needs its own page? If its a valid thing to link to, it should be linked to from this page. If its not, then it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere. Anyway, I've put it up for deletion (discussion here). Wickethewok 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating its own page was a compromise. If It cannot be its own page then it should not be listed on wikipedia at all. Uncle G is correct. It is against wikipedia policies to have such links to personal projects in the external links section. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Gamer83 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A consensus was reached theat the independent page should be deleded, NOT that wikilou is a valid link for the external link section. Actually to the contrary wiki policy has been shown that the link is innapproprate. See Uncle G's post above. For these reasons I have re-deleded the link.Gamer83 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilou is of no note per Wikipedia:Notability. Website fails test for linking, Wikipedia is not your soapbox for promoting your new, unknown, site. Please stop Gamer83 03:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louie Louie

  • "St. Louie Louie" does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (web). It is a new forum with 13 members. Currently the site has no pertinent information about St. Louis. It appears to be a cheap clone of the existing forum link. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote your new personal site. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please do not re-add the link. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising agency. Gamer83 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cheap clone of the existing forum link? If you actually check the forums, you'll see they are set up very differently from that other forum. Urban St. Louis forums offers an appreciation and showcase of St. Louis' residential architectural heritage, so the forum there deals mostly with architecture and the buying and selling of property (which is why most of the forums have to deal with "Residential Development" and "Projects and Construction"). In fact, I started this forum as an alternative to that other one, because the other one is very strict regarding content. Recently, a topic arose where users were discussing the similarities and differences between St. Louis and Chicago, and the administrator LOCKED IT simply because it wasn't 100% St. Louis-related. My forum will give people an opportunity to discuss this stuff more freely, without fear that their posts will be locked if they dare to veer a little off the beaten path. Maybe if you'd actually investigate things more closely before pulling the trigger on deleting links you would have noticed this. It's people like Gamer83 that make Wikipedia annoying as hell to use. kopper 06:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa a little intense response ! I'm sorry I'm making Wikipedia "Annoying as hell to use" for you. I am just enforcing the rules. I think it's great that you started your own forum, but Wikipedia is not a vessel for you to use to advertise/promote your new forum. The other forum link is only allowed to remain because it is the current dominant forum for St. Louis. Evidence was shown that various city officials post there, and it is widely known and the best source of information on St. Louis. Wikipedia is a source for information, not advertisements/self-promotion. It is against Wikipedia policy to post any external links to sites you are affiliated with, check the links I posted for confirmation of that rule if you wish. I apologize if you feel my enforcement of the rules has upset you. Gamer83 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Louis (disambiguation) recently moved

I do not know how contraversial this action will prove to be but if it is accepted there is some cleanup that needs to be done. Double redirects need to be fixed. And the Disambiguation page needs to list St. Louis, Missouri high enough that it will appear on the screen without having to scroll down. All the same, I am thinking it is better to see if people are going to try and have this changed before we get into all of that.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who moved this, there is some additional discussion at User talk:Bkonrad#St. Louis move. Basically, both Saint Louis and St. Louis were already redirects to the disambiguation page and had been since at least late April 2006, so there is no additional cleanup resulting from the move. And I already checked for double-redirects (as I usually do whenever I move a page), although of course more eyes looking is always a good thing. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You missed double redirects; for example the hatnote on the attached article. Since it was not quite the case I orginally thought I think the people should focus on cleaning up St. Louis so the most likely wanted pages are at the top instead of the arbitrary order the links are now in.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Those aren't double-redirects, they are simple redirects. A double-redirect is where the target of a redirect page is another redirect. Those are bad because the redirection stops after the first redirect. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK Sorry. Nevermind about those.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of the Morgan Quinto study

  • I do not believe that this "study" has any place on this page. The methodology of this report has been called into question by many people, including the FBI, the supposed "source" of their data.

http://www.kmov.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=98157 This ranking compares full metro areas like Houston to St. Louis City, not St. Louis Metropolitan area. The result is nearly every other city in the study gets to use their suburban areas to "pad" their overall crime stats, while cities politically independent of their suburban neighbors get stuck holding the bag( St. Louis, Boston, and DC). The crime statistics are already included in the current version of the page, readers can look at the raw numbers and form their own opinions, a slanted study violates NPOV. As such the inly conceivable way to include the study, would be to have it followed by a counter point explaining the studies many flaws. But that would turn this page into a place where the validity on the Morgan Quinto study is debated, and that has no place here. If anything a new page should be created for the Morgan Quinto numbers, and then a "criticisms" section should be added explaining the flaws in the study there. Gamer83 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what edit you are talking about, but the crime section talks about how all these sorts of studies are skewed for St. Louis. It is hardly this one study. It seems to happen twice a year so I feel we should talk about why these things always rank St. Louis deceivingly high. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW I see no reason to mention this most recent study in particular. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding this link to put this issue to a final rest. [1] Gamer83 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuisine

There has been a proliforation entries into the cuisine section, recently, and I would argue that not all of them pass the notability test for inclusion in this article; and some seem more like advertisements for particular brands of food than unique St. Louis cuisine despite their separate wikipedia articles. Entries (entrées?) that caught my attention were 1) Amighetti's Special sandwiches, 2) Red Hot Riplets, and 3) Gerber sandwich.


I gotta vote for Red Hot Riplets' inclusion. It's only sold in STL. I missed those chips dearly when I left for college. Gamer83 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


"I'm not sure if this would be considered unique saint louis cuisine but these places are family owned, not some big chains that you can get in other cities/states. And there food is great to boot. I would recommend these places to a person visiting Saint Louis to go and eat.

Gus's Pretzel Shop[2] - 1820 Arsenal St St Louis, MO 63118 (314) 664-4010 - Bratwurst Pretzel Sandwichs are a killer. Great place to pick up something to eat that you can easily carry with you when site seeing.

Hodak's[3] - 2100 Gravois Ave, St Louis, MO 63104 - Cheap place to eat but you would not know that by how good there food is. Two people can get out of there for less then $15 easily.

Seamus McDaniel's - 1208 Tamm Ave Saint Louis, MO 63139 - There sandwichs are so big you could split them. They got a good roast beef sandwish and a good salad(as a meal). I personaly stick with their chicken sandwish myself but I do enjoy a salad every now and then too.

Also I've never heard of Red Hot Riplets even tho I have lived in Saint Louis all my life. All 21 years of it. - Freyr 08:45, 13 November 2006(CST)"

See Red Hot Riplets - these chips have been covered in multiple independent media and were the subject of a song on a major-label recording. They're notable. They stay. Jasontoon 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's it! I can't let it slide any more! This section has become not much more that an advertisement for various local brands and companies. Local brand of chips, local brand of root beer (as good as they are) have their own local variations in every major city. I don't care about magazine and local newpaper writeups: if the majority of people in the St. Louis don't know about it, it probably doesn't deserve mentioning in the St. Louis article. --Millbrooky 05:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to agree with you. Whoever that last guy was added Pevely Ice cream and Switzer Licorice(sp?). It was getting ridiculous. Best that we cut out all local brands that are not genuine across the board known as STL cusine. Good edit in my opinion Millbrooky. Gamer83 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion/Exclusion POV

It has become increasingly clear to me that the litmus test of what is included or excluded from the St. Louis page has nothing to do with notability, or any other wikipedia standard. It seems to be the personal sentiments of a small group of people, particularly Gamer83, who make decisions about what to include or exclude based on their own POV of the item/link/anything and wrap their decision in the ambiguous guise of a "notability test" when they exclude things. Things like St. Louie Louie forums and WikiLou are excluded because they aren't "notable" enough, while things like Red Hot Riplets are included because Gamer83 likes them. I live in St. Louis and I've never heard of or seen Red Hot Riplets...
So, to be clear, I'm complaining both about the ambiguity of wikipedia policy, and its questionable implementation on this page. I wanted to make my feelings clear, and hear the opinions of others on the issue. --Mijunkin 09:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're bitter. I never said red hot riplets HAD to be included. I didn't even add them to the article in the first place. I simply VOTED for their inclusion because many people have heard of them and do eat them. The VOTE was started by another userer and you are free to VOTE however you want. If you want to VOTE for their exclusion, then do so. No way is St. Louis Louie notible enough to be placed in external links...that's obvious to anyone who looks at the site. It's a small time site and the owner placed it here days after it's inception to gain publicity, that is STRICTLY against Wikipedia policy, just as what you did with your wiki was. Wikipedia is not a link farm for every STL site. Only the most prominent ones should be placed in the external links section. It's clear to me that you simply are upset because you cannot get free advertisement on this site and you are directing your furstration at me. I suggust you get over your personal vendetta with me and become a worthwhile contributor to Wikipedia. Gamer83 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gamer83. There is very little "ambiguity" in the Notability (web) policy - it lays out three specific criteria for inclusion. Mijunkin, if you think the exclusions are unjust, make a case based on the criteria listed there. As for Red Hot Riplets, they have been the subject of an article in Esquire, won awards from the Riverfront Times, and lent their name to a song by major-label rapper Murphy Lee. This certainly seems far more notable than either of the forums whose exclusion you object to. Please refrain from the personal sniping and do a little research. Everything I mentioned in the post took me a total of 5 minutes to find. 70.129.106.222 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was logged in. The above comment from 70.129.106.22 is mine. Jasontoon 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, my complaint was two-pronged. If the majority feels that the two sites I mentioned should not be included in external links, whaterver the reason may be, then so be it. As for the second part of my complaint, I don't understand why Wikipedia policy seems to err on the side of excluding information. Personally, I'd much rather err on the side of inclusion, which would present the user with as much information as possible. It hasn't been my experience on just the St Louis page that has made me feel this way. But this discussion has little to do with the St. Louis article, so I'll end it here. Honestly, I'm sorry to have attacked Gamer83. He was merely the most recent example of a user implementing a policy I feel to be silly. --Mijunkin 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime and social issues

I restored the removal of things from this section. It does seem to be anything that should be removed without dissusion. I think the people inrested in those issues should work on Crime and social issues of St. Louis, Missouri and then make a proper summary of the end result a part of this article.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Photo Issue

The current main/skyline photo for St. Louis (at the top of the page) does not include the signature architectural symbol for St. Louis, i.e. the Gateway Arch. It's obvious the current photo was taken FROM the Arch. Surely there is a royalty-free skyline photo of St. Louis and Arch SOMEWHERE, or perhaps a Wikipedian with a digital camera would be so kind as to head across the river to Illinois to take a snapshot and upload it. Not having the Arch in the main photo for St. Louis would be like having a photo of Paris without the Eiffel Tower.

[edit] Second biggest city or metropolis?

[4] I think this edit is misleading but the editor has changed it twice and I have no wish to edit war. What does everyone else think?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to cast a vote for metropolis. I think saying STL is the second biggest city is deceiving. It makes it seem like KC is larger than STL when it really isn't. It's a land area thing as you noted. I think it's clearer to say metropolis.Gamer83 04:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then we should probably take the sentance out entirely as the lead already says St. Louis is the largest metropolis in MO and 18th in the US. No need to say the same thing twice in the same section. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Have at it. Gamer83 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shilling

From reading many of the American city entries on Wikipedia, I understand that many of the entries are somewhat factual, but have a lot of cheerleading and boosterism to it. Even with that unfortunate standard, I think this entry for St. Louis might be the worst one that I've seen. And I'm someone who has visited St. Louis numerous times and find it to be a great city! It would be nice if someone toned down the POV in this piece...it's really blatant. Asc85 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You should read the East St. Louis article. The main picture makes the place look quite delightful. Rklawton 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Rklawton...I went to the East St. Louis article and actually laughed out loud when I saw the picture! Looks like a place out of Norman Rockwell! But at least they appear to address the huge crime problem there in the article. Asc85 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a massive section on crime and social issues complete with a picture of a bombed out 4-flat in North STL, so I'm not sure what more you want. Everything else in the article basically just discusses what is in St. Louis, and some current events. I don't see much definitive POV in the article at all in fact, or I'd get rid of it myself.Gamer83 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you don't see POV, which pretty much validates my first point. I won't go line by line in this entry as it currently stands today, but here are a few (not including of course some of the things that I softened earlier):

1. "the world-renowned Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra"? Come on now. Is this even considered among the best in the U.S.? Regionally-renowned at best. 2. gives the city a reputation as, "a top notch sports town." That's a very down-the-middle objective comment. Says who? The people of St. Louis? I have no problem with "The Sporting News" reference that follows, but that first quote is cheerleading. 3. "unofficial capital of professional wrestling." I'm not an expert on professional wrestling, but I know enough about it, and I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement. But I don't know enough to shoot it down, so I left it in there. And even if it is the "unofficial capital," is that even something important enough to mention? 4. The Crime and Social Issues section - This section OPENS with a virtual disclaimer saying that the crime data is skewed, implying that it shouldn't be taken very seriously. If one didn't know about St. Louis, you wouldn't even realize from reading that section that it has historically had one of the worst crime rates in the country for many years now. To be fair, the link to the larger article addresses that issue, but this section does not. 5. The Colleges section is ridiculous. St. Louis has "a unique place in the establishment of American colleges and Universities." What does that even mean? St. Louis certainly isn't Boston, and isn't even Philadelphia, New York, Raleigh-Durham, or the Springfield, MA area when it comes to higher learning, just to name a few places. Washington University is there. So what? Rice University is in Houston. Emory University is in Atlanta. etc. etc. Additionally, the entry talks about, "a vibrant and energetic college student population." How is that defined? How is it more "vibrant and energetic" than college student populations in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or anywhere else? The article says St. Louis has, "a plethora of institutions of higher learning." Huh? This isn't Boston. This isn't Philadelphia, etc. How is plethora being defined?

I've spent far more time addressing this then I should have. These are just a few of the more egregious examples I've come across in this entry. When there's just a couple, OK. But eventually, things reach critical mass, and there's a tipping point. As I noticed someone had written in this Discussion section on a different matter, there should be a difference between a "tribute" to a city, and an encyclopedic entry. Asc85 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I never pay much attention to the sports area of the article nor whereever the orchestra comments are. I agree with you on those points. However I disagree about the comments on crime rates, the data is very largely skewed and always has been. Anyone who reads the Post-Dispatch knows this, as it happens every year. This year's hoopla over it is older than the stuff they archive on the internet so I don't have a link. But I believe is quite obvious that when you compare any statistical number from a city that is 66 sq mi to cities which are over 500 sq mi, the results will be skewed. It is not just the crime rate, but the literacy rate, unemployment rate, etc. All statistics comparing the City of St. Louis with other cities are skewed. Regarding the colleges, I think that while St. Louis may not be comparable to the Eastern Seaboard, it does have "a unique place in the establishment of American colleges and Universities" for half of the country. Granted this unique place happens to be in history, but I don't this is as much cheerleading as remarking on the prominent role St. Louis had in all things culutral when it was considered on the edge of the "frontier". I agree with you about the current student population stuff however.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments Birgitte. I really do like St. Louis whenever I visit. Not that I've visited every major city in America, but of those I visited, it is by far the friendliest...although I don't know how you mention that in a Wikipedia entry! Asc85 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bridgette, you pretty much hit my sentements spot on. Asc85, you do make some good points on some of the wording in the sports and education sections, but I too disagree about the crime ssection. The stats are skewed by an incredible margin due to not including the suburbs in STL rankings. And Bridgette, I was able to track down one of the links you mentioned. Someone archived it on youtube knowing, the local media doesn't keep things very long. [5] Gamer83 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are both being so civil, I will try to be much better at that as well. I watched that YouTube video (interesting to say the least), and I think I know where you're coming from. I THINK what you're saying is that the Metropolitan area of St. Louis is not among the most dangerous, it is the City, only. But that many people confuse the two when this is in the hands of the media. (If I'm wrong in my interpretation here, please set me straight). Nevertheless the City of St. Louis being unsafe should still be mentioned in an article like this a little bit more forcefully. I went to the Morgan Quitno website, and to be ranked as more dangerous than Newark, NJ isn't a good thing. I grew up in a suburb of that area, still visit the Ironbound section (the ONLY relatively safe part of that city) for the best Spanish food in the Northeast, and trust me when I say that most sections of Newark are places you wouldn't want to be, either in the daytime or at night. Asc85 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Close but not quite. What I'm saying is that in Morgan Quitno's ranking, he compares apples to oranges. He uses "city" boundaries, which are arbitrary and randomly picked form city to city, to define how many people the number of crimes is divided amongst. Since STL is an independent entity from STL county , only DC Detroit and Boston are also like this I believe(see a pattern forming....), It does not have it's surrounding area's suburbs(STL County) in the rankings to water down it's crime ratings like almost every other city does. A place like KC for example with a larger land area designated as "Kansas City" has suburbs within it's boundaries, and that waters down the crime rates from their city core. This causes the stats for STL to be extremely skewed. In fact, if you look on that Quitno website, when STL is ranked as a metro area(like all the other cities), they drop to #157 most dangerous......Now do you see the problem? Quitno is a hack, and his stats deserve no mention in this article. And you can't say STL city's core is any more of less dangerous that an average city core of that size, because no study like that has been done. If you want to go to each city with 1m+ people, and circle around the inner most 350k people(STL's population) from the city's " downtown center" and then compare the crime stats, THEN you would have at least a semi valid ranking. Until then, no assersions of STL having excessive crime can be stated here. Gamer83 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I work in one the worst areas (63147). It is definately urban blight. Between a quarter to half the house resembles that picture. But I lock up the shop by myself many nights, and have no problem being here past sunset. I would not come by around midnight, but it is not like you are describing Newark. Things gets stolen if they aren't locked up but there are still a number of people living around here who have had a business and property in the family for three genrations. Blighted, yes; No-man's land, no.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/2E/Talk%7ESt._Louis%2C_Missouri_015d.html"