Talk:Cleveland, Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Cleveland, Ohio is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 29, 2007.
This article was selected on the the Ohio portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Ohio.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Thank you!!

I'd like to extend my thanks and appreciation to EurekaLott, Beirne, Clevelander, and all others who have contributed to this article to get it to featured status. For posterity's sake, here's the link to the article as it looked at the time it was promoted to a featured article. If you had seen where this article was before peer review, you know what an accomplishment it was to get it up to featured status in less than a month; thank you to all, and fantastic job! PacknCanes | say something! 12:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I too would like to say a big thanks for those contributing to my hometown article. Sidar 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Portal

Calling all fellow Clevelanders! Be sure to regularly contribute and/or expand the new Cleveland portal now online! -- Clevelander 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sports table

How do you guys feel about the giant table of sports teams that was recently added to the article? I don't know if it adds anything meaningful. Much of it is a duplication of material covered in the text, and it adds more bulk to an already large article. Is there a good reason to keep it around? - EurekaLott 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I scaled it down and cleaned it up a bit to match that of the Chicago one. I would support keeping it because it stays consistent with other big city articles on Wikipedia. It is a bit bulky, though. - Clevelander 02:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This version is a definite improvement over the initial table, but I still doubt that it's needed. Allow me to explain my thoughts for each of the table's columns: name, league, and venue are adequately addressed in the text. Listing the sport is redundant when the league name makes that perfectly clear, the year founded is something I'd expect to find on the individual team articles, and including the logo serves no clear purpose. Consistency is a noble goal, but in this case, I think keeping the article size under control is more important. - EurekaLott 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to delete the Cleveland Rockers part of this table...they are no longer around. Someone may want to edit the page to show that the Rockers did exist at one time, though. BigMar992 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a short line about the Rockers. BigMar992 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone throw in a line or two about the Cleveland Crusaders WHA franchise? Hx823 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I will, if I can find the time.Hx823 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also noteworthy that the Cleveland Crunch was the first Cleveland pro sports team to win a championship since the 1964 Browns beat the Baltimore Colts.Hx823 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames - Mistake on the Lake

Speaking of other nicknames, as a native Clevelander, I've never heard "The Heart of New Connecticut." Is this nickname verifiable? If so, from what source did it come? The only thing a google search of the term turned up was the title of this book: Avery, Elroy McKendree. A History of Cleveland and Its Environs: the Heart of New Connecticut. (Chicago: Lewis Publishing Co. 1918.) This was the only reference to the nickname, and it barely filled two search pages. I hardly think that it merits inclusion in this article, and I'm going to remove it for that reason. If someone can find substantial evidence that it's widely known and/or used, please feel free to put it back in, with an appropriate citation. On a related note, I think that "The North Coast" is fairly well known; it's frequently used in the names of area businesses, at least in their advertisements.

I've put in the nicknames section a brief mention of "Mistake on the Lake." This has been reverted and I think I'll revert it back (without starting a revert war, I hope). In brief, I think Mistake on the Lake is a much better known nickname than "America's North Coast" or more than half the other nicknames listed in that section. I don't think that Wikipedia is supposed to censor reasonable reports of well known sayings, nor is it supposed to report only a sympathetic point of view - rather it's supposed to be a neutral point of view. "Mistake ..." as a well known nickname is a fact, that I'm sure all Clevelanders have heard of and know how to deal with.

BTW, I spent part of my childhood growing up in Wadsworth and Alliance, and watching Jim Brown and Leroy Kelly. I like "Greater North East Ohioland" (I don't think this nickname made it!) Go Browns!

Hmm, well, you may have something there. Although I am senstive to that particular name, I believe that yes, Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view. It shall stay. -- Clevelander 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I should have read the entire article. M on the L is already mentioned lower down in the article. I guess I just have an aversion to all those promotional nicknames that most cities have - and was looking for some balance. I'll let others judge how the overall balance now stands and make the right edit. Smallbones 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The MotL nickname definitely needs to remain in the article, but since it isn't a presently used nickname, perhaps it is best left in the "history" section, rather than at the top. I'd toss some of the other nicks down in history as well, including "Best Location in the Nation", which was probably last commonly used at the same time as MotL. Avogadro 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed both nicknames "Best Location in the Nation" and "Mistake on the Lake" from the introduction section. They now can be found in the history section. -- Clevelander 12:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of making the article seem less like a promotional piece, I removed a couple of the less commonly used nicknames. I also deleted a recently-added paragraph from the history section because it read more like a newspaper editorial than an encyclopedia article. Please feel free to re-insert it, if you can manage to remove its POV statements. - EurekaLott 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the background reference I added on the origin of the "best location in the nation" slogan. Did you find it to be inaccurate? IIRC the page at the external link I provided is credible. (It's still extant in the "History of Cleveland, Ohio" entry.) Mapsax 19:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I only took it out because it was in both places, and because the Cleveland article is already a bit larger than it should be. I don't doubt its credibility - it's just that we can only afford so much detail in the main article. Do you feel it needs to be included? - EurekaLott 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, as long as it remains somewhere :) Mapsax 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [Edited:] Actually, isn't the History section mostly redundant to the separate article? Would it be a good idea just to eliminate the History section and replace it with a link to the separate article? Mapsax 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Summary style. Generally, there should be a summary of the main article rather than simply a link. older ≠ wiser 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technology

I made some small changes to the technology information. I clarified a little of the text on the OneCleveland-Intel arrangement and I added a bit about current delays. I did that (and I am writing this) as part of a class project that involves learning about Wiki's. Please give my work a careful look and update it as the Digital Communities project (hopefully) goes forward. I don't think anything I did was controversial (or even substantial), but I wanted to take the time to explain it. CyberGroup 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname Mistake by the Lake

User:Joececchini has been adding unsourced nicknames to city articles. A reliable source must be referenced for this nickname before it can be allowed back in the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 09:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just look in any Pittsburgh-area newspaper, and it sometimes refers to Cleveland as the "Mistake By The Lake" when the Steelers and Browns play each other. Clevelanders also have used this as a form of self-depreciation, just as us Pittsburghers have called the Steel City a dirty Steel town, or "blue-collar idiots". I found an article on the term "mistake by the lake" on CBS News.com. This is definately not vandalism. Jgera5 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming your edits were vandalism. It's just that the article already covers the nickname in more detail in the history section, and there's no need to add bloat by duplicating information. See the talk a couple sections up from this for some older discussion. - EurekaLott 01:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, considering I'm from Pittsburgh, I would've likely got assumptions that it was vandalism, that's all. I didn't know it was already covered. Jgera5 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

This user lives in or hails from Cleveland or Greater Cleveland.

There is a user box available for your use shown at right.

Add the following to your user page if you'd like to:

{{user Cleveland, Ohio}}

[edit] Too Heavy an Emphasis on CWRU?

Anybody else feel that the artilce goes too in-depth about Case Western? I feel that the information included there goes beyond the scope of an article that is supposed to be about Cleveland. The superfluous information (i.e. stuff about the new president and his mission) can easily be found out by clicking on the link to the CWRU page. I will edit this informaiton out if other agree with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hutchk26 (talk • contribs) .

I pruned the section and left a note for the user who added it. - EurekaLott 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World City

Has anyone come across the world city or global city article? It mentions Cleveland as a "potential city" of earning world-class city status. Does anyone think this should be mentioned in the Cleveland city article? For an example, check out the article on Kansas City, MO...[second paragraph] OhioDesi 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to mention it. The Global city article does mention Cleveland, but doesn't rank it very highly. The Globalization and World Cities Study Group refers to the city as a minor regional-global center. I'm reverting the addition. - EurekaLott 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent neighborhoods addition

A few days ago, an anon added this:

Several inner-city neighborhoods have begun to gentrify in recent years, particularly on the city's west side, with areas such as Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit-Shoreway and Clifton-Edgewater attracting increasing numbers of artists, gays, and young professionals. A live-work zoning overlay for the city's near east side, meanwhile, has facilitated the transformation of old industrial buildings into loft spaces for artists and professionals.

Should we include it? Is there a source for this information? -- Clevelander 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The information is accurate. I replaced the deleted section and added a couple references. In the future, please do a little research before reverting reasonable additions. - EurekaLott 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

I've nominated the Cleveland article along with the History of Cleveland, Ohio article for Good Article status. -- Clevelander 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Wikipedia:Good article nomination, as the Good article feature is meant to "identify good content, which may have the potential to become featured after some development" - and this is already featured. Poulsen 18:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. I should have read over that part before nominating it. -- Clevelander 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

Because the article was getting on the chunky side again, I deleted three tables that duplicated the article's prose. I removed the list of sister cities, which is partially covered in the text and completely at Sister Cities of Cleveland, Ohio; the sports team table, which presented almost zero new information; and the table of neighboring suburbs, which in addition to duplicating the narrative, awkwardly attempted to classify every community in a single cardinal direction. - EurekaLott 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Reserve

I just added "historic" in front of the description of Cleveland being in what was the Western Reserve, but I started wondering why the WR is mentioned in the intro at all. It's not used to describe the region today, and it's already mentioned in the history section. Because of its low importance, that should be sufficient. What do you think? Confiteordeo 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. -- Clevelander 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Since no one else has weighed in on this, I removed the reference and cleaned up the sentence. Confiteordeo 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Permission ?

Did anyone have a problem or any objection with me inserting and adding photo in the article later on provided it is formatted nicely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cuyahoga County - Cleveland - Ohio.jpg

Uh, yeah. The photo is a copyright violation. It should probably be deleted. - EurekaLott 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Cleveland instead of Cleveland, Ohio, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh most dangerous city

This isn't what the AP report says. It's actually a ranking of the safest cities, and Cleveland ranks 365 out of 371. The list isn't even all-inclusive (it doesn't include New Orleans, for example,) since the report says that it's only based on cities that submitted crime data. Also, I don't think it's meaningful to compare Cleveland with cities with populations under 100,000. For the moment, I'm going to remove this info from the article, but if someone can come up with a good reason for its staying, please say something on this page and put it back in. Confiteordeo 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi please provide links for this to make it accessible. Lakers 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

United_States_cities_by_crime_rate - ranked 9 with homicide rate of 23.8 per 100,000 people.
Here's compared to national crime rate.
What AP says is based on the FBI report and it includes all towns, regardless of population - probably for mere amusement and nothing else. For more meaningful information, check the first link above, as it contains FBI's data the AP report was based on.
The article is nice for a tourist's booklet. Do include a section about crime in Cleveland, OH. Rosier 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland's loan default 1978 - not the first large city in USA to do this

I would like to take polite exception to the current statement in the Cleveland history to the effect that Cleveland was the first large city in the USA to default on its loans. I know for a fact that New York City defaulted on its loans in 1974, and as a result was forced to lay off over 30,000 city employees. I lived on Long Island at the time, having just bought a home there at the time of the default. The lingering effects of the default and resulting layoffs cast a pall on the real estate market on Long Island that lasted for over 4 years.

David P Norby, Ph.D. david.norby@abbott.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.36.62.140 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

  • New York City didn't actually default on its obligations, though it came very close (the details are here). The city needed substantial federal and state help, but the bonds and loans were paid as due. Cleveland wasn't the first large city to default in any case - I believe that there were other instances during the Depression - but it was the only such time that it happened over to such a large city over a number of decades. --DMG413 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland revitalization investigation

Hey everybody. I'm the student of Moscow State University (Department of foreign countries), Russia, and i'm on my graduation work at present. This sience work is dedicated to american cities revitalization and redevelopment. Also it is tightly connected with Cleveland. The main target is to learn the ways of revitalization in Cleveland, Oakland, Pittsburgh etc.

So, dear Clevelander or someone who interests in it, could you please describe me the way of redevelopment in your city? The main point for me is to know all about measurement that were made. When exactly did it begin? What were the steps to revitalize the city? Was the downtown take down and rebuild? Were the citizens settled apart? I'll appreciate very much for any detailed information.

Any kind of information would be very valuable for me! Thank you. Simon Freydlin Freydlins 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to write me on this theme: boardpizza@mail.ru And please forgive me for my poor english.

There is an excellent forum at urbanohio.com that you may want to check out. That's probably the best place for your question, since this talk page is supposed to be for discussion about the Cleveland Wikipedia article. Good luck with your research! Confiteordeo 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, Confiteordeo! That could be a great source for me. Freydlins 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
But there is a kind of problem with registering and entering this forum... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freydlins (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Picture caption needing revision

A collection of bridges crossing the Cuyahoga River in downtown Cleveland. The low-level bridges are drawbridges, while the high-level bridge in the background is fixed.
A collection of bridges crossing the Cuyahoga River in downtown Cleveland. The low-level bridges are drawbridges, while the high-level bridge in the background is fixed.

Regarding this picture: The bridge in the right foreground is a vertical lift bridge; that (or those) those in the left midground also seem to be of the same type; and there appear to be three high-level bridges in the background, some kind of girder bridge, a concrete arch bridge, and a cantilever bridge. This level of detail is not needed in the caption, but if a detailed description is given, it should be correct. Kablammo 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption changed. Kablammo 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

Should the first sentence not state that Cleveland is a city? It's not even mentioned in the first paragraph.24.79.73.50 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much Spin

Cleveland as a city has collapsed from a population of 914,000 in 1950 to less than half that today (c454,000). The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not enough to stem the decline. This type of overly-positive spin for places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh aren't going to help. Only changing fundamentals, like reducing the costs of doing business, reducing the crime rate, etc. will have a positive effect. Fake spin doesn't work, as the latest census numbers show.68.219.235.37 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Are you serious? I've read many city articles and most try to put a personal spin on them. I don't think its not accurate. If someone wants to know about that they can click on the specific links to specific articles. Yes Cleveland has problems but they have a lot of residential developements that are being bought up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.127.33 (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population

Population claims make no sense. Is it the largest or the 2nd largest city in Ohio? http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-Midwest/Cleveland-Population-Profile.html mentions the 2003 data as 461,324 and national ranking as #40. It is likely that the population and ranking have declined further.--70.229.212.172 23:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sister cities?

From the article: "Its (Cleveland's) 20 sister cities include Holon, Israel; Volgograd, Russia; Bratislava, Slovakia; Ljubljana, Slovenia; Miskolc, Hungary; Bangalore, India; Alexandria, Egypt; and most recently Fier, Albania." Does that seem wrong to anyone else here? Not taking into account that it doesn't even add up to 20? Bcdefg123 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

I have recently tagged this article in many places where sources are needed. For a featured article, more of this material needs to be sourced. If this material is not sourced soon, I will nominate this article for a featured article review.--Sefringle 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A few things that are marked for needing citations don't actually need citations.

  • Cleveland having the rock and roll hall of fame does not need a citation - just go to the article for the rock and roll hall of fame that is wikilinked and there are even pictures. For example, you don't need to site that San Francisco has the Bay Bridge or Minneapolis has the Mall of America.
  • "Playhouse Square includes the State, Palace, Allen, Hanna, and Ohio theaters within what is known as the Theater District of Downtown Cleveland. Playhouse Square's resident performing arts companies include the Cleveland Opera, the Ohio Ballet, and the Great Lakes Theater Festival." These two sentences do not need to be cited - once again, you don't need to site common information. If you made a claim about one of these things, such as saying that the Celeveland Opera is the third largest opera company in the nation, you need to cite that.
  • Local sporting facilities don't need to be cited - they all have wikipedia articles anyway, there is no claim that needs verification there, its obvious.
  • In the transportation sections, you don't have to provide citations for the existence of highways and roads and where they traverse. What are you going to cite, a map?
  • "Burke is primarily a commuter and business airport." ... mmm I really don't think that needs to be cited. It is a claim but its a pretty benign one. I think its a little nitpicky to want that cited.... Okiefromokla•talk 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The frist should be easy to cite, should be on the websites link. Moving on to the third point. That does need citations, and if they are on the wikilinks, just copy them here; however many of the wikilinks are often also unsourced, meaning there really are no souces. It would be a lot easier for someone doing research on the city to just click on the footnote, rather than click on the wikilink and hunt for a source. Point 5: I disagree here too. There needs to be some verification for that. I don't think that is common knowledge. The points I didn't comment on, are common knowledge.--Sefringle 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Livable?

I find the claim that Cleveland is one of the most livable cities in America to be extremely doubtful. Cleveland faces terrible schools, high crime rates, and crushing poverty. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6080044/ This claim needs investigation. I clicked on the citation and it went to a blank page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.162.192.24 (talk • contribs).

It appears the the original article on The Economist's website expired. I replaced the reference with the copy in the Wayback Machine. - EurekaLott 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the "livable" refers to Cleveland being relatively cheap compared to other cities its size. I have read quite a few articles about Cleveland being a good city to live in. The schools, under the new superintendent, have vastly improved within the last year. They still aren't the best but they are better than they have been in awhile. Cedarpointohio2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.71.153 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Tourism

Tourist destinations have always included historically significant religious architecture and its a huge part of the tourism industry. Whoever deleted this paragraph should google the term religious tourism first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orestek (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the section can't stay. You've been very persistent in inserting these details, but it comes down to a question of space. Because the article is on the large side, there are many interesting aspects of Cleveland's architecture that can't be addressed here. If there was space, there are quite a few topics that should be covered before the material you added, like the the Cleveland double style houses, the impacts of urban renewal, the collection of bridges over the Cuyahoga, the recent surge in residential construction, or some of the historic buildings in Category:Buildings and structures in Cleveland. The churches you added don't even have their own articles. From your edit history, it's clear that this is a subject you find interesting, but unfortunately, we can't cater to every hobby. - EurekaLott 11:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, and don't appreciate not assuming good faith on Orestek's part. If you'd like to set down a rule that "we can't cater to every hobby", please bear in mind that this is not your pet article either. Such a rule is anti-Wikipedian in its most fundamental aspect, so please couch an argument that relies on something other than your opinion.
The material you struck was two sentences long, and meets WP:A. Frankly its a far better edit than most here on WP. The only thing wrong with it is that you don't seem to think it belongs. Sorry, but that's not a policy or guideline.
Personally, I think architecture/civil works deserves its own section, but this is a start. Cleveland's ecclesiastical architecture is considerably more notable than the subjects you mention, except perhaps for the Cuyahoga's bridges or genuinely historic buildings. However, Cleveland two-family eye-sores barely deserve mention even in a dedicated article. MARussellPESE 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make unfounded accusations. I'm more than open to additional discussion of the subject. If there's consensus to keep the lines, then I certainly wouldn't stand in the way. If the decision is to keep them, then more discussion will be in order. Where do they belong, under tourism or cityscape? Which religious structures are most notable and deserving of mention? First, though, I'd like to see more opinions about whether the lines belong. - EurekaLott 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Future of Cleveland

I believe that a wonderful addition to the page would be a section on the future of Cleveland where construction projects in the Flats, Downtown, the Euclid Corridor, the Waterfront plan could be discussed. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.190.129.249 (talk • contribs) 01:13, June 13, 2007 (UTC).

There's actually a detailed list in the downtown Cleveland article, but I agree that it would be nice to see some of that information in the main article. My main concern, though, is size. It would be tough to pick and choose certain projects, but I think there are some that should definitely be mentioned, such as the Euclid Corridor and the Flats East/West Bank projects. What do you think of a small paragraph at the end of the history or cityscape sections? --Confiteordeo 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that a small paragraph at the end of the cityscape section about the subject would be best.

[edit] FAR

There are 10 cite needed tags, most of which date back over a month. The references aren't listed in a consistent format. There are copious redlinks in Tourism. The suburbs section should be removed, as no other city articles have this, unless, in Cleveland, the suburbs play a larger role than in (for example) Atlanta. Unless someone wants to put some serious work into this, I'm putting this up for WP:FAR.--Loodog 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. FAR can be found here.--Loodog 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
They do play a large role.--Firebird17139

Can we hear from some of this article's editors on the FAR please? Okiefromokla•talk 21:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New text

Last night, IP 76.189.216.194 expanded (without referencing) the Neighborhoods section. I'm not aware of the process with featured articles: should it be tagged, and just left there for a while, or do we just remove it after a few days, or something else? Nyttend 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new text

Why is there no mention of asiatown. asiatown (commonly known as China Town) cleveland is expanding with new apartment buildings being built and Asian Town Center, a new, 115,000-square-foot retail complex in the works. There are 4 grocery stores, a plaza, a couple bakeries, a dozen restaurants, and they have events occasionally there. http://www.asiatowncleveland.com199.232.231.96 (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its not notable. A neighborhood isn't necessarily important because it has a new shopping center. If it is notable, write something about it. I would shy away from using Asiatown's website as a reference, but you can start with this from the Plain Dealer.Montco (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also borderline advertising.--Loodog (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Asiatown is notable, but it's an odd case because it emerged after the city's Statistical Planning Areas were defined. It's mostly in the St. Clair-Superior neighborhood, but also partly in Midown and the Quadrangle. I think that details about Asiatown belong in the St. Clair-Superior article. - EurekaLott (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Ohio crime

Where is the section on crime?--Margrave1206 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African American Population

Can anybody explain the historical circumstances that led to such a large African-American population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.109.255 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Many African-Americans came to Cleveland looking for industrial jobs in the early part of the 20th century. You might want to look at the article on the Great Migration for more info. --Confiteordeo (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indoor Soccer

I trimmed the text about indoor soccer again. This article has to cover a lot of territory, and cannot afford to dwell on relatively minor items. The additions about indoor soccer made it grossly out of proportion to the other topics in the sports section. A sentence might be justifiable, but an entire paragraph makes the section very unbalanced. It wouldn't be difficult to argue that something as inconsequential as indoor soccer should be omitted entirely. If you'd like to contribute more on the subject, I suggest adding to the Cleveland Force article, which has a lot of room for improvement. - Eureka Lott 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that there would be sports snobbery around here. Then might I suggest that the fact that the Browns won the NFL chanpionship in 1964 be deleted. That is already covered in the Cleveland Browns article. And certainly don't need to mention the close calls the Indians have had, that's covered in their article. And the Cavs vs. the Spurs? We can look it up at the Cavs (or Spurs) article, can't we? If we could just delete Art Modell too, while we're at it.
On a serious note, four sentences is NOT devoting too much time to Indoor Soccer. If you feel that four sentences is a disproportionate amoumt then beef up the Cavs, Indians and Browns sections. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. And even the overseas leagues engage in Indoor Soccer matches, albeit slightly different than the American version. And if you want to ignore the tone of my first paragraph, there is justification for the three or four sentences that were added. Let's see, both teams folded, (Cleveland Rockers), they won a championship (Cleveland Browns). I did not ramble on and on about the subject, I tried to be short and sweet. You are acting (and over reacting) as if I did a total rewrite of the section which is not true at all.
And FYI, I am working (slowly, but working nonetheless) on the Cleveland Force article, thank you very much!Hx823 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. The article is about Cleveland, not its sports teams -- defunct or active. The info you are concerned about belongs in articles about those teams. The Browns, Indians and Cavs warrant mentioning, perhaps more so than the others being that they still exist and contribute a disproportionate amount of revenue for the city than the other teams mentioned -- and the Force and Crunch didn't even play in the city or even Cuyahoga County for that matter, so there isn't even any relevance besides the name Cleveland. If you want to mention that they existed in the article, that's fine... but it isn't contributing anything noteworthy with regard to the town itself. Look around at other big city articles: nothing is mentioned about the Chicago Sting in the Chicago article, and I don't think the Baltimore Blast get any more than a quick mention in their town's articles either. Call me a snob. I love soccer, and follow the EPL almost as much as I follow the Browns and Tribe... but I don't really see why mentioning two defunct indoor soccer teams should be important to the Cleveland article. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware that the Wolstein Center was not in Cleveland (or Cuyahoga County for that matter). Where is it? Mentor? Elyria? Akron? Maybe it's secretly in Sandusky. Check your facts out first. And since when is it not notable that a pro sports team won a league championship (or three)? I am not minimizing the Indians, Cavs or browns or their impact. You're acting like I'm trying to merge these articles. I am not. I am not persuing an agenda, no matter what you think.Hx823 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want me to call you a snob, I will but that is beside the point, you can't say that the article is about Cleveland, not it's sports teams and then say we'll include the Cavs, Indians and browns because of the impact (economic or otherwise) these teams have and not include a three time champion is the height of hypocracy. OK, that line is not entirely true unless you look at Eureka's comments about something as inconsequential as Indoor Soccer not being difficult to argue against including. Excuuuusssee me? I lived through that 90's era that saw the Crunch be the most succesful Cleveland team (w-l pct wise) of that decade and dominate almost like the browns did in their first few years in the NFL. Now, before you start accusing me of being biased, I also lived through the last browns championship in '64. I lived through, heck, I attended several of the Cavs 'Miracle In Richfield' playoff games against the Bullets. I lived through the 'Kardiac Kids' era of the browns (I have the 45 rpm records to prove it!). So I am hardly biased to insist that the Force & Crunch have brief moment in the article dealing with their Championships. Perhaps you were just thrown off by the fact that this section was merged into the section that dealt with the announcement of a possible expansion team in the MLS. Moving the section about the Force and Crunch there certainly made it seem a little weighty. I believe originally, the section about the Force and Crunch was seperate from this to minimize such a happening.Hx823 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The silence is deafening!Hx823 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland is also home....

How many times is this stated in the article "Cleveland is also home"? Could the wording be worked on. --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Demographics

It is important that we consider what we are putting into this section. I have fixed two things here: first, not all Lebanese Americans (or Lebanese Nationals) are Arabs. Don't lump them into one group because it is convenient. Second, there is no mention of religious groups in the article, so to include Jews (or any other non-Christian religion for that matter) as an ethnicity, is a divisive move. While a claim that Judaism can be labeled as an ethnicity is debatable, it is quite irrelevant for the purposes of this article (or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter). Most of the Jews, particularly the established communities of Orthodox Jews in the Greater Cleveland area, reside in the Eastern suburbs, not in the city. Otherwise, for national origin purposes, many are already covered ethnically in the article as being of Eastern European origin/descendants. Please be considerate, and don't forget to cite sources. If religion is important to the article, then let's add a brief paragraph on Cleveland's religious communities (using citations backed by census info of course). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The heart of the argument

Here's what the paragraph reads:

There are also substantial communities of Hungarians, Arabs, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Greeks, Ukrainians, Albanians, Macedonians, Croats, Serbs, Lithuanians, Slovenians, Koreans, and Han Chinese. (emphasis is mine)

Besides the debatable part of being an ethnicity (which is opinion oriented as much as anything ), here's a fact: there are no significant populations of Jews living 'in the city limits of Cleveland. They left a long time ago.

Look, it's about accuracy. My observation is from the perspective of having lived in the near Eastern suburbs of Cleveland for the first 20 of my 36 years, as a Jew in a predominantly Jewish community. I've had relatives who lived in Glenville years ago, before it changed and the suburban exodus took place. I worked downtown for years, and I still get back home to visit family, so it's not like I didn't get around town, nor have things suddenly changed after decades -- there hasn't been a substantial Jewish population in the City of Cleveland in years -- unless I'm mistaken, the article is not about the suburbs, but the city itself.

True, my own experience, while empirical and a primary source in nature (neither are allowable under Wiki standards) they still inform the argument. But regardless, cited sources in this case are irrelevant to my half of the argument. I'm not trying to include anything, I'm seeking an exclusion of inaccurate info.

Here's what I'll offer you: As per Wiki standards, if you can name a single Jewish neighborhood in the city proper (and I mean a neighborhood, not simply a couple of families living on the same street), I'll go along without an argument or a revert -- but it needs to be cited using a census-backed source (The Cleveland Jewish News might be a good place to start [1]). Or, if you really want to mention religion in the city, start a subsection in the demographic section regarding religion. I'm not opposed to that. Just cite it and I'm satisfied -- as Wikipedia would be as well. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As an inner-city non-Jew who has known Cleveland-area Jews and has had them for friends, I too would be surprised to learn there were more than a few thousand Jews residing in Cleveland proper. If I've ever met any, I can't recall it. Google "jewish synagogues cleveland" and the map that comes up on the results page tells the tale. There are just a handful of results listed as being in Cleveland--one on the West Side out on Triskett Road, which is actually geographically west of Lakewood, one south of the city at Broadway and E. 71st, and a bunch that for one reason or another have Cleveland addresses despite being in the Cleveland Heights/University Heights vicinity. A scan of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland's community resources page [2] confirms that only very few institutions (schools, etc.) are in the city proper, and even those mostly have addresses which place them on the cusp of East Side suburbs. The call for evidence of a Jewish enclave in the city of Cleveland is justified. Robert K S (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a few Jews living on the west side, some on the border with Parma/Brook Park area, some living right along the fringe by the suburbs, and some in the University Circle Area. I think most Jews now live in Shaker Heights and Beachwood, where there are more synagogues, the Jewish Community Center, etc. I also did the "jewish synagogues cleveland," and I know of more temples in Cleveland besides the ones shown. SpencerT♦C 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] population estimates

I can understand wanting to stick by actual Census figures, but if we're going to put these cities in a ranking, we can't do it on different terms. I removed all population rankings from the lead since they fell into direct contradiction with Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas, Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas, List of United States cities by population.--Loodog (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand the concern about contradicting another article, I don't think that it is necessary to completely remove the rankings. At the time of the Census, the rankings were accurate, and they have not changed all that dramatically since (that is to say, Cleveland hasn't fallen to 120th most populous,) so the 2000 rankings still give a good idea of the city and metro's size with respect to the rest of the country. I have re-added the rankings but reworded the sentences to clearly indicate that the rankings are the 2000 numbers. If people want what the Census Bureau's current guesses, they can see the pages you reference (which are also linked to in the article.) --Confiteordeo (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"not changed all that dramatically"? It went from 33rd to 40th! If Cleveland is the 33rd-largest city in the country, what is Albuquerque? Failing to update the rankings gives a misrepresentation of the city of Cleveland. The fact is that many cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo (the Rust Belt) are losing population while Fresno, San Jose, and Dallas (the Sun belt) continue to grow. Why obscure the picture with a different reference of ranking for each city, depending on what makes it the biggest? Every other city article I've seen runs on latest Census estimates, including the Rust Belt cities I just mentioned.--Loodog (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think that data is being misinterpreted, but the fact of the matter is that the last time that people were actually counted in Cleveland and in every other city in the country was in 2000. In that census, Cleveland's population dropped by 23,000 from the 1999 estimate. Marion County, Indiana gained something like 50,000 people from their '99 estimate. Since the 2000 figures were published, Cincinnati, DC, and Boston have argued their way to gains in their estimates of between 30,000 and 60,000 each. These cities were all projected to have lost population, despite Boston's two previous decades of growth, and Cincinnati and DC appear to have magically reversed 5 decades of significant population decline. These differences are not insignificant and can move a city 7 spots in the rankings, and of the thousands of cities in this country, no, 33rd to 40th is not terribly dramatic. 32nd to 83rd, however, is. Cleveland is still a medium-sized city with a lot of regional and some national importance. Sorry, but I'm not misrepresenting anything- the population decline is obvious if the reader looks at the table in the demographics section, and nothing in the lead implies that Cleveland is growing. Just because other city articles use census estimates doesn't mean that this one has to. I'm well aware of the demographic trends, thank you, but we won't have really accurate numbers again until 2010, and the rankings mean sh!t without them.
Also, please don't accuse me of trying to make Cleveland the biggest I can (way to assume good faith, btw.) If I wanted to do that, I would have used the Social Compact Drilldown Study from 2003 that found 588,362 people living in Cleveland. I think that's a bogus number, too, and it rightly isn't used in this article. --Confiteordeo (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A city doesn't have to get hit by a hurricane for notable demographic changes to happen, Cleveland being a prime example with an est. 7% drop in population. Next, I beg to differ on whether the population decline of the city can be inferred. The demographics section doesn't include the 2006 estimate so the only information the reader has (and then only if looking for it) is: the population was dropping in 2000. But, aside from representing current trends, my main concern was consistency with the above rankings. If you're deeming them worthless without actual headcounts, that's something to take up on those articles, rather than piecemeal fixes in individual articles.--Loodog (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That "notable demographic change" is debatable (I can elaborate on your talkpage if you wish.) Although the city is likely still losing people, why should we cite numbers based on shaky data? The consistency argument is bullshit because the Cleveland article now clearly states that the rankings are from 2000 (and it implied it before I made my changes,) and the lists explicitly say that the estimates are from 2006.
Also, don't try to tell me what articles to edit. I actively contribute to this one and am concerned with its content, but I don't give a rat's ass what's in a bunch of silly lists, unless its vandalism. Do I go around screwing with other cities' population figures? No. So don't accuse me of making piecemeal fixes in multiple articles. I'm not advocating a sweeping change here, I just want this article to contain the most accurate information possible, and unfortunately, that data is seven years old. --Confiteordeo (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A) Rankings are meaningless without actual headcounts
B) The articles I've presented rank based on estimates
Therefore C) The articles I've presented have ranked improperly.
Any use of A) to justify the 2000 rankings in this article requires you to take issue with the other articles' rankings first.
How about including a minor note next to the 2000 rankings, suggesting estimated trends on this tentative rank?--Loodog (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I doubt Cincinnati has increased in population so those estimates arent correct. My city census from 2000 says there is only 7% Latino population and their estimates follow the same line just increased the whole population of the city. When Latinos are 33% of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.127.33 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the whole point is that the estimates say the city's population has declined since 2000.--Loodog (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beit She'an is a sister city

It should be added.

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Indians?

I'm a bit surprised that there is not a single word about pre-history, and that there is not even mentioned that there are indians living in Cleveland. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good point. If you want to, you can add this information would be at History of Cleveland, Ohio, possibly using this website. SpencerT♦C 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have written the german version of Cleveland's pre-history [3] and have used the same source. Nevertheless, thanks for the hint. Now I've tried to write the english version, although I'm shure the text needs some rectification. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll look over it. SpencerT♦C 10:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)