Talk:New Rome, Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal
New Rome, Ohio is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
Peer review New Rome, Ohio has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Though New Rome was just dissolved as a municipality by a court order, I'm going to wait a little while before I delist it in Category:Villages in Ohio and move it into Category:Ohio history, to wait for the body to grow cold. Appeals can take years, though in this case there aren't any plausible grounds.

There's also an interesting question that I don't know has been dealt with on wikipedia yet—what do you do with the demographic information on an article about a municipality once it ceases to exist? It's unlikely that its paltry 70 people would be later treated as a census-designated place, but who knows. I s'pose at the very least the information could be kept as the last recorded data ("former demographics," "former geography"?) of the now non-existant municipality. Postdlf 01:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting case. If you look at old census data, you'll see it is littered with no longer existent municipalities. It is something of a cottage industry among geneologists tracing out where such extinct municipalities where located. older≠wiser 13:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] pov

Does this article need an edit for pov? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haakonsson (talk • contribs)

Don't assume POV just because an article has nothing nice to say about the subject matter. There simply isn't anything nice to say about the subject matter—a municipality that never provided any services to its few residents, was arbitrarily and illegally oppressive to those passing through, and was finally legally extinguished by the state (under a law passed just to get rid of New Rome) because of the village government's incompetence and corruption.
An article is POV if it misrepresents or omits facts or focuses on a single perspective to the exlusion of other meritorious positions. Here, however, the article's statements are all true, no part of the story has been left out, and there simply isn't a legitimate way to account for the village's misconduct—there is no honest counter-argument here (nor were even dishonest ones ever documented). Everything was well documented in the media (see the external links at the bottom) and in government documents and court filings. The interpretation of the facts that the article presents is the same assumed by every newspaper that ever wrote about the town, local and even national television news, the state government that passed a law just to get rid of it, and the judge who dissolved it. Its last legitimate mayor ran for office on an official platform of abolishing it. If you can show me a source that presents contrary facts or a different viewpoint, we'll discuss it. Postdlf 01:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
An article is POV if it provides 1 point of view, whether or not it "misrepresents or omits facts"; this article blatantly "focuses on a single perspective". I'm tagging it. --Quentin Smith 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
...and that other point of view would be what? Where have you found another perspective documented? Please substantively respond to my 12-06-05 comments above. Postdlf 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the POV tag since the user who added it has failed to provide any specific examples as to how this article is POV. We need to know what needs to be fixed, not just that one reader happens to have an issue with it. --CrypticBacon 05:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A need for added research and update to the article?

I recall reading that New Rome actually lowered the speed limit on US 40 in violation of state law. Because US 40 is a state owned road, the state (through ODOT) is the only governmental entity empowered to post and change speed limits. A municipality can request that the speed limits be changed. As I understand things, New Rome failed to do this. They posted the lower speed limits on their own. -- WildcatRay

It's not quite that simple. It may be a state road, but it's in a municipality. Cities of at least 10,000 population are responsible for maintenence of all non-Interstate state roads within their borders. Apparently, smaller municipalities (such as New Rome) are capable of assuming operation responsibility of state roads, including speed limits, and there are state guidelines for these. Vid the Kid - Does this font make me look fat? 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV (Again)

Both of these are blatant POV without descent citations and even then need rewrites. I'm not saying you're wrong; simply you need to write with multiple points of view. I'm tagging for POV and needed citations.

  1. The controversy soon broadened into a question of who was even legally on the Council, as none of the councilmember appointments had been registered with the state as required by law.
  2. Nearly all of this money was funneled back into the police force, which almost exclusively dealt with traffic violations and so essentially existed to fund itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quentin Smith (talk • contribs) .
So if I get this straight, you actually have no familiarity with the topic, you're just assuming that there is another unexpressed point of view, correct? http://www.newromesucks.com/newslinks.html has links to a few years worth of local media stories that I believe will document everything (hopefully there are enough links that are still good). When I have time, I will go through and add individual citations, but in the meantime, please read through the stories and acquaint yourself with the subject matter. Postdlf 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In support of statement #1 quoted above: "All council members were appointed to office by other council members. None of the appointments were registered with the Franklin County Board of Elections, as required by state law." New Mayor Walks Out of Meeting Amid Chaos, Columbus Dispatch, January 27, 2002. Also, "[The defendants] have agreed that they cannot challenge the attorney general's allegations that the village has failed to properly follow applicable election laws for at least two consecutive cycles for (at least) one elected office in the village..." June 30, 2004 Order dissolving New Rome, Judge David Cain, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

In support of statement #2 above: "[New Rome] takes in more than $300,000 in traffic fines annually from tickets written on a 1,000-foot strip of West Broad Street. Almost all the money is spent on the police."Intimidation? New Rome Police Visit School Of Councilman's Grandchildren, NBC4 (Columbus, OH affiliate) website. "‘The village expended $309,385, or 82 percent of its general-fund budget, to support a police force whose primary purpose appears to be writing traffic tickets,’ the audit [conducted by the State of Ohio] found...‘[T]he fact remains that the New Rome government doesn't serve an important purpose.’" Erase New Rome, Petro says, Columbus Dispatch, May 9, 2002.

These news links were provided in the article's first external link, under the description "Includes stories of dealings with New Rome police, as well as many news links documenting New Rome's decline." Did you think this was all made up? You obviously didn't bother to read any of the news before making your assumptions. Postdlf 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)