Talk:Akron, Ohio/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Meth capital

While this is significant information, shouldn't this section be on the page about Summit County? All sources label Summit County, not Akron specifically, as the "Meth capital of Ohio." I think some mention of the high amount of meth use should be made in this article, but the current section really doesn't fit or make much sense. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this statement, the Meth Capital information was removed because it specifically plagiarized from the Akron Beacon Journal article posted on Ohio.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.107.9 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears the IP who's been editing here has undid the removal. Since it has been reported to be plagiarized I'll remove it again. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

what "plagiarized" are you seeing??? what two words? half a sentence?(WOW) restating true factual information isnt plagtrism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.87.219 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restating info without a source IS plagiarism no matter how true it is. I think the problem here is that much of the section was simply lifted into this article word for word without being properly attributed (it would need to be in quotes, not just referenced). If the section is important enough to be included, then it needs to be rephrased and referenced. My personal opinion is that the "Meth Capital of Ohio" in the Beacon-Journal article is clearly referring to Summit County (not Akron specifically) so only a passing mention really needs to be included in the article (the info relative to Akron), not a section. Most of the info would be better suited for an article about meth use in Ohio. Remember, the main subject of the article is Akron, not tangential information that is related to Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly tired of this rude IP. The Meth section has nothing to do with Akron, "Birthplace of Televangelism" has almost nothing to do with Akron and does not deserve a full section, "Birthplace of Devilstrips" is generally unreferenced and trivial, "Riot of 1900" and "Six day Civil Disorder of July 1968" need wikified, more referencing, and cleanup (I placed cleanup tags and they were removed with no summary as to why and nothing had been changed), "Criminal Organizations" is just a bio of that Borgio guy; it is too inclusive and should be removed, "Zeppelins and blimps" is generally unreffed except for one sentence, "Cityscape" doesn't even have any prose, "Culture and entertainment" is pretty much unreffed and the music section doesn't follow the MoS, "Infrastructure" has no references, "List of events and objects the city of Akron witnessed first" and "Akron in popular culture" are way too trivial, most of the "Fictional characters" are redlinks. I know the above IP hasn't added all of those sections but they were all added by users who dropped off the map one after the other. On top of that the IP then attacks those who they believe are wrong, when I was just acting on someone saying the material was plagiarized. To the new editors: We have Policies on editing, you must follow them. §hep • ^Talk 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to that, there are standards here too. Go take a look at other articles to see what constitutes a "good" or "featured" article here. You'll note they are written well and don't have a bunch of lists and trivia items; the information contained within the articles is relevant to helping the readers understand the main subject better, but not giving them an exhaustive history of EVERYTHING related to the subject. For a few excellent examples, see:

• Boston
• Cleveland, Ohio
• Ann Arbor, Michigan
• New York City
• Houston
• Washington, DC

These are a few examples of featured (meaning the best of the best) articles. For a larger list of featured or just well-written articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities#Progress. There is no reason this article can't be a featured article, however, it is a long way from being such due to the enormous amount of trivial and tangential information (and unsourced speculation) it contains. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Birthplace of Devilstrips"

I removed this section because not only is it largely irrelevant to the article (it's trivia, not encyclopedic) but it makes it sound like the devilstrip concept (which is a term that appears to be unique to Akron) was established in Akron. The section itself said that a devilstrip is referred to by other terms (tree lawn, sidewalk buffer, etc.) in different parts of the country, so to say that Akron is the "birthplace" of them is neither true nor is it verifiable. The only thing that Akron may have been the "birthplace" of is the term devilstrip, not the concept. As such, devilstrip falls under trivia and even then it isn't significant trivia as it is a term virtually unknown outside of Akron. There are many more sections that need to be either removed completely or reduced and better integrated into this article. Please do not place this section back into the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeppelins and blimps

I removed this section because it was bascially a word-for-word copy of the source listed at the end seen here. While the manufacturing of zeppelins and blimps is a notable part of the history of Akron, it needs to be written in our own words. Even with the source listed in the footnotes, it is still considered plagiarism and is against Wikipedia policy to simply cut and paste the contents of a webpage to an article. On top of that much of the information lifted from the source was about zeppelins, not about Akron, which again in the subject here. Citing a source does not give an author the right to quote an entire article (especially without using quotes to denote the fact that it is from somewhere else). --JonRidinger (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored a paragraph I wrote several years ago regarding this subject. It is my own language and rife with Wiki links. I believe it is more concise and has better phrasing than the language that it is replacing. I retained the two cites that were there, but the rest of the information is essentially common knowledge and shouldn't need further citation. Overall this is a fairly minor edit, and is in fact a reversion to a paragraph that was on this page for several years without complaint. If anyone has suggestions for improvements, feel free to share them. - JE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.235.11 (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Please become familiar with the concept of plagiarism. Just because a few words are reordered and one small citation is made at the end of a section does not mean it is not plagiarism, which is defined on Wikipedia as "the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." (Wikipedia: Plagiarism, emphasis added). I removed several sections because they were almost identical to the sources at the end. Some of the sections had additional information that was largely tangential and was unsourced at that. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors

It seems a duo has been formed to disrupt the page, there edits are questionable, one of the two are from kent which had there stadium spray painted with "AK-Rowdy" so some envy comes into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.87.219 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, others are never to speak badly of other users. Please read WP:CIVIL. The location or hometown of a user has nothing to do with the content dispute of the article you currently have. Your page modifications which go against are policies and guidelines are the disruptive edits and the page will be restored to an acceptable quality whether you believe the changes are needed or not. I suggest you take some time to actually read our policies and stop the disruption. Further disruption may result in a block. §hep • ^Talk 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The "duo" consists of experienced editors who want this article to be much better than it currently is; an encyclopedic article instead of a collection of tangential trivia. All of our edits have been fully explained on the talk page and in the edit summaries and both of us have established user accounts and user pages. And what does the vandalism of Dix Stadium have to do with anything? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would state that one editor is "sensitive" for his calls of foul, but it might result in a block?????(i dont even remember cursing, threatening of any sort. the duo is the only 2 out the whole wikipedia community to have problems which leaves concearn of a conspiracy. but fair enough for now the article will be in crisp clean top rate shape by weeks end. Ak-Rowdy stadium formaly known as dick's stadium is one editor's college team home which his page says hes from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.87.219 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page above this. There are other editors who have expressed the same editorial concerns that Stepshep and I have; we have just been the most consistent and kept with it. Why? Because we want this article to be as good as the ones I listed above and we are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and standards. Why those editors have stopped editing is their own business; perhaps they are frustrated or just busy with other projects. Regardless, your comments are way out of line, particularly your attempt to somehow connect the childish vandalism of Dix Stadium way back from this summer to the removal of questionable and plagiarized content from the Akron, Ohio Wikipedia article as if the two have any connection whatsoever. If you are concerned that my connection to Kent State University somehow affects my editing of Akron-related articles, please look at the edit histories of Akron Zips and Akron Zips men's basketball both of which I have made contributions to with sources, the men's basketball article in particular. Again, I am concerned with making articles well-written and encyclopedic, not promoting a certain subject. As far as I'm concerned this is another article that I happen to have some local connection to that really needs a lot of work. Removing the above-mentioned content is only one step. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

removing allowed pictures, refferenced material, and un plagtrized content is Vandalism--Rubohcity (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

clearly things got out of hand here, i believe in respect for every fellow man. it seems the ip whose been editing clearly is only trying to help but in his good faiths are going kinda overboard, i care as much about the place as you so i must ask you politly to please not add anymore information unless its welly known. Also for the well established members to quit be so rash in editing the page please i will trim down on the article more in due time p.s. its wikipedia so keep it cool--Rubohcity (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the IP editor for 3RR violations. With all due respect, you did not edit for four days, then showed up twenty minutes after I blocked the IP. I suspect you are either working together or are one and the same. Be that as it may, your edits and those of the IP do not follow the Manual of Style, or are copyright violations. Wikipedia operates on consensus and by following the models of better articles that meet the highest standards (which Akron's article currently does not). I have looked at your uploads of images on Commons and found many more copyvios. I have flagged them on Commons as copyvios and will remove the images from the article next. That is why we are reverting the edits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the insite(wondering why noone replied) did you also block the other to editors?? LOL NO yes it may seem that way but i just been quietly observing the edits daily and the last got out of hand and no one came to fix it so i felt it was left to me--Rubohcity (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to that, anyone can edit this article; no one owns it, so if it needs to be trimmed back, any editor not only can do it, but should if they have sufficient evidence and spell out their reasonings. The reason the "well-established" members seem "rash" is because of the policy of being bold and their knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia policies and standards. Basically, if you know something is against policy, remove it or fix it so it is in line with policy; don't just wait for someone else to do it. Further, be careful with pictures, even ones that are legitimate public domain, so that the article doesn't become cluttered with pictures or looks awkward because of their placement. Not every picture related to Akron has a place in this article, but especially non-free images from other websites. There is such a thing as too many pictures. Legitimate public domain (free) pictures uploaded to the Commons can have a gallery link placed in the article page as well. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the explanation of your sudden appearance here today. I did not revert the other editors as Wikipedia:Three-revert rule explictly does not count the removal of copyright violations towards 3RR. Wikipedia opeartes on consensus and has a Manual of style and policies and guidelines this needs to follow too. There are also model articles that are featured and this does not yet meet those standards. I will reply on your talk page about the copyvios you keep uploading on Commons. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We do agree that this Diff is a net loss? Or am I missing something? §hep • ^Talk 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the daytime photo. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do as well...it's clearer in more ways than one. I like night photos, but for a lead picture like this, I prefer a daytime skyline photo. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not because it is more updated updated, plus the daytime photo is already being used as cityscape like in cleveland's--Rubohcity (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland's cityscape also details the cityscape. A picture alone cannot support a section. §hep • ^Talk 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean by detail?--Rubohcity (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Detail (Verb) §hep • ^Talk 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

so it will be done.--Rubohcity (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't going ot happen. Three users agreed that the daytime photo in the infobox was the best choice, by consensus the image was changed. To remove duplication the "cityscape" section was removed. What's wrong with what I've done? §hep • ^Talk 23:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The facts are simply this, the article has a picture, cityscape has a picture with details, and there is no sense in deleting any one of them aslong as in similar form to other accepted articles.--Rubohcity (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A caption does not constitute a section, or even detail the entire landscape of the city. Take a look at Cleveland or Houston. Architecture, neighborhoods, suburbs, history of the layout; that's what it will take to support a section on the cityscape. §hep • ^Talk 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

so basically, if i make a downtown Akron article(which ive been working on and is semi done) and make it a blue link as in the cleveland and houston then all will be fair?--Rubohcity (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. There's other parts to Akron's cityscape besides the downtown. 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

please clarify what you mean? and what needs to be done so it is accepted like Cleveland and Houstons?--Rubohcity (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It would really make things flow easier if you used indents like everyone else. I said above everything that should be included and have no need to repeat myself. §hep • ^Talk 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

....ok. obviously you didnt do it clear enough or forgot something because on Cleveland citscape its a picture of downtown(it says it in the caption) and a blue link that leads to downtown Cleveland, and what i stated doing would make it the exact same. i refuse your reply since you refuse mine thank you.--Rubohcity (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you noted Cleveland, take a look at the layout:

4 Cityscape

4.1 Architecture

4.2 Neighborhoods

4.3 Suburbs

That's a bit more than a link and caption. §hep • ^Talk 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i see now, this can be done in an roughly an hours time im starting now.--Rubohcity (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that consensus says to change the image to the daytime photo. §hep • ^Talk 00:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

so if i gather up more than just three users who agree to what i suggested doing and that the pictures should be kept as is then all should be fair?--Rubohcity (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's canvassing. §hep • ^Talk 00:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Shep's right. It's one thing when editors agree on a certain edit, but it's something else when one editor goes and recruits other editors who have made little or no contribution to the article just to pad their vote. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i should have chose better words, that is not my attention and wont do it in that way. so with all said then it should be fair?--Rubohcity (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful with "fair." Consensus doesn't equal fair. In the end it should be what's best for the article and there are almost certain to be disagreements on what is best. When there are disagreements, that is where consensus comes in to play. Consensus is usually brought by experienced editors who know the policies and standards of Wikipedia. In this case, the main issue is what photo to use in the infobox. In all honesty, if the night photo was of much higher resolution (the current photo looks like it was taken with a cell phone) and had more building and less sky (the picture is like 2/3 sky), I wouldn't mind it as much, though for a lead picture in most other city articles, you are likely to see a daytime photo, which is the biggest reason you have three editors who would prefer to see the daytime photo in the infobox for this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In case I need to further justfy my removal, the content can be located here a bit down the page. §hep • ^Talk 01:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio photos removed

User:Rubohcity insists on uploading copyvio photos to Commons and adding them to this article. Some examples this user has uploaded and insists on restoring to this article after I removed them follow:

• File:AkronRoadRunner.jpg clearly says in the Metadata that it is the work of an Akron Beacon Journal photographer, and so is not a free image. I note this was deleted from Commons as a copyvio before, when it was called File:Marathon pt 02.jpg.
• File:Metro RTA Transit Center aerial view.jpg is clearly taken from the Metro website here, which has no indication of any free license. It is thus a copyvio.
• File:Akron's Art museum.jpg is clearly the same as this image], which has no indication of any free license. It is thus a copyvio.

Please see WP:COPYVIO, which says in part that Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find.. I have done that and will continue to do so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss a couple hours miss a lot. I completely agree with your edits and will do the same if I notice the images being readded. §hep • ^Talk 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the File:SummitCountyMethSites.jpg as Rubohcity identified the source as the Akron Public Library, which gives no indication of a free license. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same with me. Please understand this isn't just the edit police here trying to crush everything certain editors are attempting to add; the policies on copyrighted photos and content are to protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement lawsuits. On the Commons, you can ONLY upload your own photos (photos you took with your camera). Here on Wikipedia copyrighted photos can be uploaded but only when a free version is unavailable and not possible (like a logo or an historic photo of something that doesn't exist anymore). Even in those exceptions, rationales must be given and the use of those pictures must have a detailed rationale for each article it is used in (see File:KSU seal.png and File:KentStateGoldenFlashes.png for examples of multiple rationales). All of us are here to help make sure everyone understands the policies. Please ask! --JonRidinger (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you again for schooling me, i now know the meaning of "free" on here, i thought it had something to do with buying(embarrising) p.s. this is how wikipedia should be and continue on going--Rubohcity (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of us have been there, so no need to be embarrassed in not totally understanding. The important thing is that hopefully now you do understand and can help improve the article by making sure others don't make the same mistake and by possibly getting your own pictures with your own camera so there is no debate. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cityscape

I moved this down to a separate section. There are a few things that need to be addressed. First, the picture used in the infobox should be the daytime photo. Not only is it a better and clearer photo, but it is also a much higher resolution than the night photo, which seems to have been taken with a cell phone camera or some other low-resolution camera. I would like to see the daytime image cropped on the ends, however, so that it can be larger in the infobox without making it too wide.

As for the cityscape photo and section and how it relates to the Cleveland, Ohio article, please note, as Step has done, that the skyline picture is part of a section on the many aspects of Cleveland's cityscape. The picture itself has a link to the article Downtown Cleveland in its caption, but the photo in no way stands on its own as a section like was the case in this article. It appears that way simply because of the size and position. If Robohcity is writing a section on the cityscape, great! Even if that is the case, there is no need to keep reverting Step's edits. There are plenty of images that can be used in the cityscape section besides the skyline picture, particularly the images that seem to be highlighting the art deco style. Other images of the skyline could also be contributed as well. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a crop? Too tight, not tight enough? §hep • ^Talk 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your presence as you are reasonable, the problem is that cropping would result in copyrighting, plus the image in its current form is perfect for the cityscape as in cleveland's, also the infobox should have the most recent picture available which as is.--Rubohcity (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with cropping a free image. It retains the same copyright status as it had before. I also cropped out the extra sky at File:AkronOhioSkyLineNight.jpg while I was at it. §hep • ^Talk 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cropping won't result in copyright problems if the image is already in the public domain (though it should still be attributed). I'm not saying this image wouldn't work in the cityscape section when it's actually written, but I don't like the night picture mostly because it's low resolution as I mentioned. Since the infobox picture is the first one seen, I think a daytime photo is best. A night photo would be good to include possibly in the cityscape section. The best infobox skyline photos are daytime ones that are close to square in shape (like 4x6 dimensions). --JonRidinger (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that the daytime image is preferred for the infobox. If I look at the daytime photo I can tell it is Akron, but I have no idea looking at the night photo where it is. Multiple reverts against consensus violate WP:3RR and will lead to a block. Cropping a photo that is here under a free license does not change its copyright status - read the license, it allows modification of the image. However, often you will see a cropped version of a photo saved under the file name plus "crop" or something similar. That way both versions of the image (original and crop) are allowed. I was not on Wiki much until now, sorry for the delay in replying. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Byebye sockpuppet. §hep • ^Talk 23:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Given the recent sockpuppet and IP edit warring here, I have semi-protected the article for a week to let things cool down. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Idea

What about moving the "Notable people" section to its own list, such as has been done with List of people from York, Pennsylvania? The Akron list could either be listed under "See also" (as in York, Pennsylvania) or a brief summary could be left in the article per WP:Summary style, with some of the most notables mentioned very briefly (perhaps Rubber industry, music, not sure who else). How does this seem? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We already have the article at List of people from Akron, Ohio. The sandbox currently just links to that and the main category. Is what's at the sandbox now similar to what you are talking about? §hep • ^Talk 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. As we have often done here, I looked at Cleveland, Ohio and it doesn't even have a summary of notable people...it just has a small link to the list in the Cleveland template at the bottom and references a few of them throughout the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it safe to remove "Akron in popular culture"? §hep • ^Talk 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoops - I had not seen that. I would chop out the list in the article (perhaps making sure no one is lost in the process), and just link it under See also at the bottom of tha article. Sorry not to have seen that before, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be OK with removing it - would it make sense to have an Akron, Ohio in popular culture article just to serve as a cruft magnet? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I double-checked with AWB and everyone appears to have been migrated. Though I need to fix that article a bit, as all the names make it look a bit weird. I think we should try to stay away from inviting cruft to Wikipedia. I'd just as well remove the section and forget about it; but I seem to have a problem with not seeing the big picture so a cruft article might be good? §hep • ^Talk 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are FAs on cities which also have a popular culture in that city article, I am fine with just axing the section. Agree we should always work to make things better - thanks for pointing that out. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DAB links

This is more of a personal note, I'm signing out in a minute: §hep • ^Talk 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Akron using {{Disambig}}
• B.G. using {{Disambig}}
• Barberton using {{Geodis}}
• Canal Park using {{Geodis}}
• Fairlawn using {{Disambig}}
• Goodyear using {{Disambig}}
• Juvenile using {{Disambig}}
• Macon using {{Disambig}}
• Rubber using {{Disambig}}
• Stow using {{Disambig}}
• Tallmadge using {{Disambig}}

Reffed nicknames here. §hep • ^Talk 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

fixes

i started fixing the page back up to good status, due to library time limits i cant finish all today, please keep contributing thany you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.33.2 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful with your edits. Do not add lists of information, even if it seems "interesting." Most trivial information doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic article and will likely get removed unless it is notable. The paragraph of Akron "firsts" and the section on clothing featuring "maps" of Akron come to mind as they are unsourced and mostly trivial. Stuff like that belongs on an Akron promotional page, but not an encyclopedic artice. Remember, Wikipedia is not a promotional page (see WP:NOT). Second, be sure to source all info added. Unsourced info will be tagged and/or removed. Not only can it violate several Wikipedia policies, but it can also be plagiarism/copyright violation if it is not properly attributed. Third, be sure to look at featured city articles as a guideline for how this article should look and what it should include. The template for U.S. cities can be viewed here. Bear in mind this is a recommended layout and some liberties can be taken with how sections are grouped and how pictures and charts are used, etc. Despite those liberties, it is best to stick as closely to the template as possible. There is no reason this article cannot eventually be a featured article. But as we have said before, it is far from it. Make sure edits are done with an understanding of and respect for Wikipedia policies. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

"Roo Town" and "AK Rowdy" are more associated with the University of Akron than they are with the city as a whole. True, "AK Rowdy" comes from the song by Chrissie Hynde, but it has never been accepted as an actual nickname for the city (in reality it seems to be more a moniker for someone from Akron). Even if that isn't what she meant, that song would be the only use of "AK Rowdy" as a nickname, so that doesn't really constitute an established nickname. I have lived in the Akron area most of my life and have never heard Akron referred to as "AK Rowdy." In any case, AK Rowdy today is the name of the UA student athletic booster club and "Roo Town" is a current promotional campaign being run by the University to support the athletic department (see the huge banner on the side of Stiles Field House). Neither constitute an established nickname known by others outside of Akron like "The Rubber City." If you include the casual references to "AK Rowdy" and "Roo Town" that opens the door for other "common" nicknames like "Crakron," which is heard in the area but is unsourced, so has no place in this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AK-Rowdy is a song created by V.E.C., this proven, since the song has been played on Cleveland Radio Stations and i've heard the song, im pretty sure they were alomst exclusivly referring to the city and not a person.

The UofA students unlawfully adopted the song/name as their own after the song was played by school and school staff at the beginning of each match they had til a point where they distained from doing it. I have lived in Akron all my life (with the exception of 2 or 3 baby years in Barberton) and have countlessly heard it referred to as AK-Rowdy. To stress a point even further, in the movie In Too Deep with a character posing from Akron, they even play 50cent's Rowdy,Rowdy song during the build up as he walks upon the club in the movie. If it matters, i myself sometimes referr to Akron as that (when out of state) and on ocasion been understood in chicago/california once maybe twice.

To even more further stress a point:

AK-Rowdy

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ak%20rowdy

http://www.rubbercityclothing.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=240

AK-Rowdies

http://media.www.buchtelite.com/media/storage/paper1203/news/2007/11/20/News/rowdie.For.Ua.Sports-3110964.shtml

and Crackron is just self explanitory stupid, i've also heard the city called Methron(which is a more suitable nickname) in recent times but would not consider a drug a nickname.

To stress my point out even more than nerves, a local retail store sells shirts featuring AK-Rowdy with Akron (not the University) in the background. While college owned shops in the city sell AK-Rowdies merchandise.

And something that does'nt need to be stressed, how can a college/university be referred to as a town let alone Roo-Town, it seems it referrs to the city in which they are in. Plus when you say/hear Roo-Town world-widely first thing to come to mind is the city/town Akron. Akron University's nickname is The U of A and if you grew up in Akron then you'd know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.33.2 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one "nickname" of the UA is "Akron U" and its real name is the University of Akron, not Akron University. "U of A" is another nick name or shortened version, but not the only one. I'm not saying Roo Town isn't a nickname for Akron, but it isn't widely known outside of Akron, nor do people not connected to the University refer to it as "Roo Town." Printing t-shirts with the Akron skyline doesn't make it an accepted nickname and only attests to the fact that it is a marketing campaign by the University. In fact, I have seen ads running on the UA campus that feature the Cleveland skyline in the background of "Roo Town." It's very similar to Provo, Utah, home of Brigham Young University, being known as "Cougar Town" which was a similar advertising campaign to "Roo Town."

Again, as a reminder the nickname list should include nicknames that are widely known not only inside the city, but notable outside as well, like the Rubber City. Regardless of your opinion of "Crakron" it is widely heard outside of Akron but in the Akron Metro area...it's along the lines of Cleveland's "Mistake on the Lake." It's not about what you consider a nickname, remember, but what is notable. As long as you can supply reliable sources for notable examples of Akron being referred to as "AK-Rowdy" and "Roo Town" by third party sources (to prove their notability), myself and other editors won't keep removing it. You dimply being an Akron native does not give your opinion on the matter higher priority than any other Wikipedia editor. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point I thought of is be careful about applying your knowledge and perspective as an Akron native, particularly to this nickname issue. While there are certainly insights and other things you may know simply by having lived in Akron all or most of your life, that doesn't mean those items are A) important enough for this article and B) known or notable outside of Akron. I am a native of the Akron area, Kent specifically, so I have heard many "nicknames" for Kent which are used quite frequently on a local basis but aren't ones I would say are nicknames worthy of an encyclopedic entry; same for Akron. The Wikipedia article seems to be more focused on a nickname or nicknames that a particular city are known by outside of the community as well. So no, I don't doubt many in Akron and even in northeast Ohio refer to Akron as "Roo Town" or "AK Rowdy" (though I personally have never heard either used outside of their current University of Akron context), that doesn't translate into a well-known, notable nickname. This goes for general information within the article too. Ask yourself: is it notable? Does anyone really care? If you can answer yes and provide reliable third party sources (i.e. not city or University of Akron sources) to verify it, by all means include it. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear what other editors think on the subject of nicknames. I read the most recent addition, the citation which follows the nickname "Polymer Capital of the World." The actual citation does not say those exact words, but instead says "Akron has successfully converted from the world's rubber capital to the world's polymer capital..." While it doesn't validate the exact phrase "Polymer Capital of the World" does it even constitute an actual nickname? To me it doesn't, but I'd like to see what other editors think. Usually when I think of a nickname, I think of uses where the nickname is used in place of the actual city name. For instance, saying "The Akron Aeros have called the Rubber City home for 12 years" actually uses "Rubber City" in place of the name Akron. The citation in the book above doesn't lend itself to a nickname but more of a statement about the high number of polymer companies in Akron. Other thoughts? --JonRidinger (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah hears my thoughs, just like the Jay leno kent thing, you should trust my good faith cause there is no way of proving on internet as i was told, but i just know its true i can prove it Just not on here like the kent thing...So up with the names

The edits on the Kent page are irrelevant to this page and I have already explained that the source I have provided in regards to that issue is sufficient according to Wikipedia standards. If the nickname is notable enough to be included in this article, there should be ample evidence of it in usage as a nickname of Akron, not heresay or a passing reference in one book. As I mentioned before, there are many negative nicknames of Akron that are also used by a large number of people, so by your logic those should also be included. By good faith we assume that when an editor provides a source without a link, they actually have posession of such a source (such as a video or printed book). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The current ref for Roo-Town is just about garbage. Citing the name once, in the title, doesn't give that it's a nickname of the city. As far as I can tell from that source Roo-Town refers specifically to the university's campus, not the city as a whole. §hep^Talk 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames revisited

OK so I was looking at the project template for the Cities Project (of which I am a member) and here's what it says about the nicknames in the template infobox: "Nickname(s): Include from 1-3 informal nicknames (e.g. "The Big Apple", "River City")." In the lead section, it lists nicknames "if notable" as something to include within the parameters of WP:LEAD. For more info, see WP:USCITY. I would say "Rubber City" and "City of Invention" are the two most notable and will find the most uses both inside and outside of Akron as common nicknames. I tend to believe "Rubber City" is by far the most common. Many of the others are found in just one or few sources as far as I've seen, but hardly seem widespread or notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK so what about the new york and other pages that have over three???? oh but you just the Akron Page Police right?--33ohmygad (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what the template says. I have not edited the New York City page so I can't speak for the process it's gone through and the debates (if any) over their nicknames (personally I think the infobox is excessive since the lead paragraph mentions the three most common names: Gotham, the Big Apple, and The City That Never Sleeps). I think we should try to stick to the template above all else and then worry about little things like whether "Roo Town" and "AK-Rowdy" are widely-known and used nicknames of Akron. So far I have seen ONE reference for Roo-Town (which could easily mean the University of Akron) and one obscure reference in the song to "AK-Rowdy." Even Polymer Capital of the World has just once source, so it hardly represents an established or well-known nickname. I also find it ironic and somewhat humorous that a user who has made edits only to this page is accusing someone else of being "just the Akron Page Police." --JonRidinger (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've uploaded File:Akron downtown skyline aerial.jpg which might be useful under the cityscape section, but the article recently got wayyy to top-heavy with images. It's here for the taking if anyone wants it. §hep • ^Talk 06:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Image was uploaded via bot and not currently up, it has to finish processing something-or-other. §hep • ^Talk 06:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture removals, moves

I removed a few pictures and moved others in a recent edit and wanted to explain why. All of the pictures I removed were merely tangential to the topic. For instance, the photo of the blimp Akron flying over Manhattan is interesting, but not really relevant to the article on the city of Akron. It's only relevance to Akron is the name and the fact that it was built in Akron, but that picture would be better suited for an article on blimps and/or Manhattan. The same was true of the Apollo 11 picture and the picture of the cornershot gun. If people would like to know more about those things, they can follow the Wikilink to those respective articles. It's interesting Akron has played some role with them, but the subject of the article is Akron. I moved other pictures to more appropriate sections, like the Airdock picture to the section on blimps since the Airdock really isn't used as a terminal for transportation, nor was it even mentioned in the transportation section but was mentioned in the blimp hub section (plus the picture was old anyway). The same was true for the aerial of downtown Akron. While it may have shown the general area of the Wooster Ave. Riots, there was no way to really tell where they happened from that picture, so I moved it to the section on downtown. I also removed the picture of the scoreboard at the James A. Rhodes Arena as it really doesn't do much to illustrate college athletics other than show the Zips logo. The reader doesn't even know what the arena itself looks like from that picture. A better picture would be of an actual game there or at the Rubber Bowl. I also removed the picture of the Akron Metropolitan Statistical Area as the section it was in is about the city of Akron, not the MSA. I replaced it with a "See Also." Just remember that each picture should have direct relevance to the section it is placed in and should help the reader understand the section and the main subject of the whole article better. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHHAHAHAH so then restart and do it right, i assure you i can see where you messed up...besides didnt even take a census on this. feel free to--Methron (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not place the tag on this article to remove some of the pictures, Step did, and other experienced editors who are familiar with what a good article looks like would do the same. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy either. You can make edits you feel necessary based on Wikipedia standards and policies, which include pictures, and so can I without approval or consensus. It's called being bold. If I "messed up so badly," please explain how as I explained my reasons for moving and removing certain pictures. Look up the Image Style Guide to become familiar with what kinds of pictures are appropriate and where they are appropriate in certain articles. Please do not take removal of pictures so personally. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removals. For some reason I smell a dirty sock. Wonder who that could be? §hep^Talk 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ooow somebody is attacking somebody and they know better but are not following rules like with what they are doing with the page...but anyway...How could page have too many pictures when Los angeles has more pictures?--Methron (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This articles shouldn't be constantly compared to other city articles! Bottom line. §hep^Talk 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should be held to the same standards as every other city articles!! God's truth and Wikipedia's GuideLine rules--Methron (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing this article to another one and upholding it to the MoS (et. al.) are completely different things. §hep^Talk 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

if you are so sure of this then point out exactly what is not being followed...in other words shut me up.--Methron (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A few bullets of WP:MOSIMAGES (linked to in the template I plastered), Wikipedia:Layout#Images (entire text), Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images (a few points). §hep^Talk 01:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Los Angeles article was formerly listed as a "good" article (step below a "featured" article), but is currently delisted meaning it has many good things, but also has problems as well that haven't been worked out. Basically, it's not up to Wikipedia standards but is far ahead of this article.

As for "what exactly is not being followed" I did that above: pictures in articles need to have direct relevance to the article subject, not indirect relevance. Even the picture of the blimp Akron really is indirectly related simply because of the name and manufacturing site. That specific picture would be better suited in an article about blimps, Manhattan, and/or the actual blimp itself (the Akron). The picture of the Airdock was much better suited because A) it's an Akron landmark, B) it has direct relevance to Akron's role as "Blimp Hub" (the picture itself even showed a blimp inside the airdock), and C) the Airdock is mentioned in that section already, so a picture of it is appropriate.

And if you're going to demand reasons why we remove pictures, please include as much detail in why you think they should remain. It's only fair you have to explain yourself if you ask of it from others. You have given no explanation why you feel you are right. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A) the section is about history, it is a pic during the prime of the industry

B) blimps travel by air, it shows blimp doing action

C) it shows a model of blimp made during and the blimp is named which is in section

D) the airdock is a terminal and has information down there about it and also ws used for tranportation, i will write info if i must--Methron (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That section should be removed, it's unreferenced and pretty much a single sentence. Context is key, these pictures don't provide any. §hep^Talk 02:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what is meant by 'context' the picture seem to have it, it symbolizes points in the section like; a blimp, a blimp manufactured in akron, a blimp doing what it was designed to do, an at times of events picture to go with section. lso from what i saw on the MoS page the article isnt over crowded with 'too many pics' if you insist that it is then please give reason.--TheWrongster (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the picture of the USS Akron over Manhattan is indirectly related to the article. Just because something was manufactured in Akron doesn't mean it is appropriate to include a picture of it here, especially something as non-notable as the USS Akron. The article on blimps would be far more appropriate for that pictire. Now, if the picture had the USS Akron flying over the city of Akron, I probably would be OK with including it since it would be directly related to Akron, Ohio. The picture of the Airdock with the blimp inside was far more relevant to that section than anything since it featured an actual Akron landmark that played a key role in Akron's past as the blimp hub. Remember, the subject of the article is Akron, Ohio; not blimps, not things made in Akron, and not things named Akron. The purpose of the blimp section and all sections is to give the reader a better understanding of its role in the development of the city. There is an article on blimps for those who want to learn more about them. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In another case, the USS Akron (ZRS-4) is notable and has do with Akron since it is also called the "Spirit of Akron"(i can get proof if you dont already know) so is in place on this page like the tree logo on the kent page.--TheWrongster (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected on the USS Akron being notable, however, that still does not mean the picture of it should be included as again, it is tangentially related to the main subject. Mentioning it is fine, but a picture is not needed as a reader can easily get pictures of it on the article on the USS Akron. Also, it is not currently called the "Spirit of Akron" as the article states it crashed in 1933. Goodyear currently does not have a blimp under the name "Spirit of Akron" as the last one crashed around 10 years ago (was replaced by current "Spirit of Goodyear"). As for the tree logo, that is the official logo of the city of Kent, used on government buildings, forms, and signs, so it is directly related to the subject of that article (and really isn't relevant to this dicusssion). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Youve been corrected on alot of things, this is an Akron History section(you know, past events) not about present which the section isnt about present but during the time/prime it was the blimp hub, the photo is From that time, It Welly Fits Inside The Section. this is ridiculous..--TheWrongster (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Akron. The picture in in Manhattan. Remember? §hep^Talk 03:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(out) While the USS Akron (ZRS-4) is notable, it is NOT a blimp - it had a rigid frame and was basically an American zeppelin. There are several free pictures of it available, and I agree that a picture of it over Manhattan in an article on Akron makes little sense. The Spirit of Akron was a Goodyear Blimp, a non-rigid airship. They were built by the same company, both had Akron in their name, and sadly both crashed / were lost, but they are not the same airship. Much as I like zeppelins, I think a photo so the airdock and a blimp or blimps is a much better image for an article on Akron, Ohio. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent editing

recent editors seem to have made bias edits that isnt devoted to making the page 'better' for instance though reason have been given(and clear references) a constant editor(s) continue to reomve Every single edit done9including non vandilism) with out reasoning back. Am I the only other person who sees something wrong with this?? --TheWrongster (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

like why is the blimp picture keep being removed from a section about blimps? this is ridiculous, it was even made and named after the city.(as seen to be stated above)--TheWrongster (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

dude dont even worry, just about every wikipedian knows two wiki goers (no names needed) is on some jealously type thing. anyway i removed some pics to lower down to same count as cleveland even, so if they come back on the same ish then we should just resort to reporting.. but yeah you aint gotta worry bout dis page i got it since you seem to be on quest so dont wste your time on AK haters.--Methron (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What does the Cleveland article have to do with this one? §hep^Talk 00:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

I've added the {{npov}} tag to the article. There are definite issues with this. The 'crime' section goes into way too much detail, and seriously needs an overhaul -- most of that is actually historical, and notable information should be included in the history section. But much can still be snipped and left on the cutting room floor.

The environmental 'go green' bit in the geography section is written like an advertisement or promotional brochure. It's not appropriate for that section, which should focus on the geographical features, cityscape, neighborhoods, and climate. But not on political issues and promotions.

The culture section is really little more than a collection of various pop culture references and sports teams in the city, and the sports teams just sounds like it's advertising them, which is inappropriate. The culture section should really be describing the culture of the people, how they interact with each other, and cultural events and landmarks.

I'd strongly recommend that editors review the guideline for US city articles, which covers the overall structure for what articles should look like. At present, I don't even think I'd give the article a C-class rating -- that seems horribly generous. Start-class might be more appropriate, as it's really little more than a generic hodgepodge of random facts. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FYI, much of the problems stem from a recent spate of sockpuppet edits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to revert to post-war Akron. I'll leave what I'm about to do on the /temp subpapge tomorrow (exams take priority right now). There's been more than a dozen socks flying around here the past few months. §hep^Talk 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to replacing the page with Talk:Akron, Ohio/Temp. Is there any content that has been added in the mean time that we should keep? §hep^Talk 21:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK by me Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The history will need redone, there was some useful info in there, just not a lot. The dirty deed's been done. §hep^Talk 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think theres a more simpler and non data loss aproach to doing this--Mehogganiewood (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No data was lost. Just cruft that's unneeded. §hep^Talk 20:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Given the apparent return of a User:Sleepydre sock, I have semi-protected the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

talk about jumping to conclusions and paranoia, just because im from Akron; even if i was a blood relative of him/her dosent mean im a "sock puppet" this is america and im not guilty of any wiikipidical crime and so far my contribute have been non-vandaalism and good faith. so attack me all you want as long as i know im not doing anything wrong. also how do you dispute a block because the page should not be left in this state, all should be able to contribute.--Mehogganiewood (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

bringing back massive data that was tooken away with other with no reason

im adding back sections of factual reference material like editors are suposed to do on Wikipedia, going by MoS. reverting will be reported if no reason is given, also one editors has been removing my edits (evens ones that were proven to be correct by others editors) there might be a vandle so watch out--66.61.87.219 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleepydre, please do not add content that has consensus not to be here. §hep^Talk 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

son, please do not remove content that is true and exist on other pages 9like sports and other major section) that was never specified in a "consensus not to be here"--66.61.87.219 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

One edit you made on another article was reverted by Step that I had decided was OK. One. Basically your reputation precedes yourself. Editors no longer trust your edits, so are accustomed to reverting them ASAP and you have done little if anything to fix that as you continue to violate Wikipedia policy in your edits and treatment of other editors. And to be honest, I could've also reverted that one edit, but in the end decided what you removed wasn't that significant for the main point. Your edit summary, however, both there and elsewhere have been generally unprofessional and rude. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper and easier way of doing this

lets take a vote baesed wikipedia MoS on what content belongs?--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We work off of consensus not votes. §hep^Talk 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur0, there's really no reason to even think about the removed content. It's been added over almost the span of a year by a serial sockpuppeteer who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. It was all mostly cruft and didn't belong. To be honest we need to look at fixing up the history section as it still needs some pretty major cleanup. Thanks, §hep^Talk 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, other experienced editors who have nothing to do with Akron have commented that the page read like an advertisement and even questioned it being a "C" class article, so this article has a long way to go. It needs to stick to relevant and notable info, proper sources, properly placed images, and well-written paragraphs and sections. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed, lets asorb all notable/important information we can and leave the cruft for dead.(hope dead isnt to extreme of a word that will result in consequence??)--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. §hep^Talk 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In need of editing

This article reads smoothly until you get to the section titled "Riot in 1900". Everything after that appears to have been edited by someone with the grammar and writing skills of a chimp. Would anyone be so kind as to correct its grammar and structure to make it more readable? I'll attempt to do it myself but I'm not a registered user of Wikipedia and don't know if my changes would be approved or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.198 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's on the todo list, feel free to help out. Chimp. hehe §hep^Talk 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also on my todo list, i'd like to start up a discussion about what sections should go up(like sports) and dont wnt to make any very significant edits to this page until then.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

so far ive added a better picture, and fixed up the music section, if any promblem is spotted, please tag and open discussion, the sports section is tagged and missing alot of teams, i will do work later if no one steps up to it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also sections that were here for months without removal and were discussed and had problems worked out with it are now gone, i think they sould be put back, anyone thinking different?? also for anyone who wants: {{User Akron, Ohio}} {{User Akron}} --Threeblur0 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, every but you thinks differently and you know it. Three editors at "#In popular culture section removed", two at "#Clutter", three at "#Editors", three at "#Neutrality issues", and others in multiple sections. I know there was one that went on a bit about the popular culture section needing mooted and others as well (I didn't check the archive to give you section titles). The point is the total of those sections was a total net loss, see the comments about the work of yours we left by 68.73.75.198. Even your recent edit to the Neighborhoods section. You removed the needed section header, and formatted it using colbreaks which don't work in every browser. We have to make the article accessible to everyone and colbreaks just translate into nothing being there on certain browsers. Can we focus on fixing what needs fixed right now, and work on adding content later? §hep^Talk 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everyone except for the admistrators and couple editors who came by the page and added more on-top of my edits... Well since you seem to know, then could you provide me with the knowledge on how to properly put?...Ok, fine lets do it that way.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everyone except for the admistrators and couple editors who came by the page and added more on-top of my edits

That should say something right there.

Well since you seem to know, then could you provide me with the knowledge on how to properly put?

Put what?

Ok, fine lets do it that way.

You lost me there. §hep^Talk 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

<-Stepshep, I think he's asking for your suggestions on how you think it should be done.. --Versageek 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and sorry for not being clear.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well he said above he wasn't going to mass-add old content back that has approval by many to be gone. Look what they're up to. I'm taking a break from this article, I'm tired of it. §hep^Talk 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I didnt go on a "mass-add old content back that has approval by many to be gone" (show evidence of where editors agreed upon not putting, then show me where i put it back) , i could had easily just reverted the article and started te reasonable way by keeping good knowledge and cutting out with other editors the bad, but the way im doing it is just as good i think..--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur0, Looking at this diff which reflects all of the edits to this article since you were unblocked, I have a few suggestions. You added a list of neighborhoods that really does nothing for the main article. They are covered in more detail in a subarticle. Rather than listing all of them, why not add a more meta-type paragraph discussing the role of the neighborhoods in Akron's history (assuming such an analysis has been done at some point & published in a reliable source, though you may need to look to an offline source like microfiche of newspapers or books on local history from the library.). - and let the individual neighborhoods be covered in the subarticle. I see a list of parks also, lists are generally discouraged, I'm not sure if Akron has enough parks for a subarticle, or if the information on parks could be included in the neighborhoods subarticle, based on the neighborhood where the park is located, or if you could include a meta-paragraph about Akron parks in general and some details on a few of the larger or more well known ones. I'm just thinking out loud here.. I'm hoping the sudden rush of editing here hasn't driven Stepshep off entirely, and he and other editors will chime in with content related suggestions to help you and this article move away from the frustrating edit/revert cycles that all those months of sockpuppets caused. (it's frustrating for both sides!) You may also want to consider spending some time editing unrelated articles (like the ones I archived into your talk page history), so that others can have a chance to look at and expand upon the changes you've made here today. --Versageek 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I also was thinking that about the neighborhoods, and attempted early on but an editor (not stepshep) said it was crufting the page. um i dont know what meta-paragraph means/is may i get an example? I also thought the same about parks to make it like new yorks but never got around to it (kinda difficult explaining parks to me) you're also thinking right....me neither, he/se keeps me in check when i start leaning off what the article is mainly about...yeah i understand and just started doing that.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A "meta-paragraph" is a short introduction/summary of a topic, sort of like the "lead section" or first paragraph of most good articles here on wiki. (I'm probably the only person who call is a "meta-paragraph though ;) ). One other thing I noticed was that you had used an about.com url for a reference on US Census data. It's probably better to use the appropriate census.gov URL for that (lots of examples for formatting in the existing refs too).. and always be careful when using about.com as a ref. In addition to their unique content, they mirror our content - and we don't want to accidentally use our own material as a reference. (as an example, the about.com URL you added has our entire article at the bottom of the page). --Versageek 16:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I get it now and am currently starting one. Yeah I see what you mean and kinda figured that, but didnt want to discredit the site without any proof. This will be worked out by the days end.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A note

Since there is a lot of discussion on this page about Sleepydre and his socks, I'd like to let everyone one know that Threeblur0 has been unblocked under conditions outlined here. I'd like to see this work out well for both the project and all of the editors involved, so I hope that other editors will give Threeblur0 a fresh chance to show he can work collaboratively within our guidelines and rules to improve this & other Wikipedia articles. --Versageek 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I recently just put a wikitravel page as a reference to museums, i dont know if this is appropriate but due to the long list of museums (and half of them having Akron in there name) thought it would be kinda unnecessary to add like ten on one small section.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikis are not generally considered relaible sources - please see WP:RS Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

I am glad Threeblur0 is working constructively, but there are still numerous issues with the Akron article. I will metion a few.

1. Riot of 1900 - this is probably worth including in the article as a few sentences, but its size seems to violate WP:WEIGHT. The section is about 1/3 the size of "The Rubber Capital of the World" section, which is about several decades of the industry that made the city grow and famous. It is also out of chronological order. More importantly, it claims in the first sentence In 1900, Akron experienced it's first riot in history ... but the only ref cited says no such thing.
2. Organized Crime - again out of chronological order, and seems to have too much weight as well, but my real concern here is that the one and only source cited says nothing that I could find about Akron was one of the first Mafia cities in the United States., the first sentence.
3. Blimps - I really think this section should be part of the Rubber Capital section or a subsection of it, since the airships were all from Goodyear. Also these were airships, not just blimps. The Akron and Macon were essentially zeppelins, not blimps. I owuld also link Goodyear Airdock in the caption.
4. References - these need more information than they have, {{cite web}} would be good to use here.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of your seggestions, i was thinking too. The editing is about to be hetic but with sense.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The blimp thing is handled, i also added info about other goodyear made air vechicles and add a picture that covers goodyear airdock, goodyearblimp, zepplins/airships, and Akron.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did further research on the 1900 riot and added a reference plus switched "first" to 'worst"--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I kinda fixed the Mafia problem.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well since no tags have been popping up, im gonna start adding info as soon as get the park thing together.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reread my concerns. I will look at the 1900 riot as one example. It is still out of chronological context, and it is still way too big compared to the rest of the History section items. Please read WP:Summary style. I have no problem with splitting the article off on its own and linking it here, but it needs to be cut way back. Look at the FA on New York City. There is ONE sentence in it on the New York Draft Riots of 1863, quote: Anger at military conscription during the American Civil War (1861–1865) led to the Draft Riots of 1863, one of the worst incidents of civil unrest in American history.[27] These riots lasted about a week, killed hundreds, and are described in the article on them as the largest civil insurrection in American history apart from the Civil War itself. The 1900 riot should be treated similarly here - one or two sentences at most. Ditto for the crime boss. One or two sentences and a link to a larger article. I think the best thing would be to incorporate these into the rest of the history chronologically. It may be there is enough material for a section on immigrants and race relations that could have a short description on each of the 1900 and 1960s riots, and perhaps the Mafia boss too. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other issues as well and many of the tags have been removed by you Threeblur. One reference does not mean a section is sufficiently sourced. Along with that, virtually all of the sources need to be placed in the proper template rather than just being a link (see WP:CITET) which Ruhrfisch mentioned earlier as well. I agree with the statements about the history section. It should be divided into more general aspects of Akron's history (like the canal period, the rubber period, the modern era, etc) rather than focus on single events. Akron is not known for the 1900 riot or even the mafia business. Those sections could easily fit into a few sentences in a section on, say, the twentieth century. Remember, the article also "reads like a brochure" according to another editor and the biggest problem it faced was having too much cruft. What is here still has much work to be refined and polished before we start mass-adding more info with spotty sources. Please don't make more work for other editors in your haste and excitement to build this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes my superior intellect formed the stated idea already. Remember, the article was reverted by an editor back to what he considered an ok start knocking out the "brochure like reading/cruft" and i have started from there collaborating with editors. What we had here was me acting upon noone replying to my question of any thing else needed corrected, then you coming after the fact. Please do not call patiently adding data that was lost, back over several days in which could be all worked out in mier hours, haste.--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy on the sarcasm there Threeblur0, it comes across as hostile & arrogant in cyberspace. --Versageek 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

again sorry Versageek...i will try again...Ok basically ive been putting in atleast 90% of the work so far, i dont see the problems your stating, how about You fix the problems that are so in plain sight to you? Honestly, im getting tired of spending all my wiki time on just this article (im smarter at other things than you think), so reguardless of wats been fixed and has not, at 1:00 today im "hastly" adding back info and correcting what I see wrong then moving on to other things.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Threeblur0, please see Wikipedia:Consensus which is official policy on how things work here. Just because you are tired of the process does not give you the right to "hastily" add back info and correct what you see as wrong. My recollection is that you pledged to work with others as a condition for Versageek unblocking you. Everyone has different priorities on where to spend their time here. I do not have the time or resources to add much new material to this article, though I can clean up the airships a bit eventually. I think most people do make time to try and help you and to keep the article from being degraded / made worse. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just add we should never "hastily" add anything to Wikipedia. All additions should be done carefully, with proper sources, and well-written in encyclopedic form; they should be positive additions to the article and enhance it. In other words, make it better, not just bigger. The best edits and additions are ones that other editors either don't need to touch at all or have to only make minor edits to. I think most of us would prefer a well-written and properly sourced article that is smaller over a large article full of minimal sources, trivial information, and poorly written. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ruhrfisch, please read the Akron, Ohio page in the near future after events done by meh. Thats the most ive read cause i dont like reading over nd over when i know im right. and the rest you editors throwing shots at Threebluraa, you only get half a bar, _____ _____ usas.--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Threeblur0, please read what you wrote on your own talk page: Yes, I editor"Threeblur0" promise to stay under this identity and read/follow wikipedia rules to constructivly improve this site, and use talkpages and other editors to help make good decisions for the cause of wikipedia. I understand the above administrator's seriousness and probation like conditions in this rare chance given to me. --Threeblur0 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC) If you are not abiding by this agreement, why should you remain unblocked? Just curious as to your rationale, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Because ive been "stay(ing) under this identity and read/follow wikipedia rules to constructivly improve this site, and use talkpages and other editors to help make good decisions for the cause of wikipedia" and my contributions page is proof.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Your own contribs page is proof that you haven't even taken a look at some of our simplest policies. I saw no need for you to be unblocked in the first place, your recent actions here indicate a lack of willingness to work with others ni a mature fashion. §hep^Talk 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Even this page has documented proof of me working with an editor and administrator above, but its crazy how i remember clicking on policy links and reading them but no virtual proof detests it but you see it(only). I saw no need for you to be attacking on your page like you were doing (almost on some conspiracy type doing). If you are ever ready to prove statements please inform me, i willing and ready.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] are just a few from skimming your contribs. These do not include edit summaries which also indicate a lack of maturity. Also, don't you dare place another warning on my talk page; have a discussion like we are now. §hep^Talk 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

These as well: [7] and [8] §hep^Talk 02:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i was putting back material you removed along with Other editors edits that were correct. Then cutting out wat needs to be cut out with participating editors/adminstrators seen above. What is your explanation for losing all that Good data mix with bad? I did it the right way but cutting Only bad parts unlike you did. But yeah all that aside im am reporting you.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You should not as your edits say "add cruft" to an article. My explanation is that all of the content was awful, even the halfway salvagebale content was not formatted correctly the other half of the time. You show an exteme lack of understanding policy with edits similar to when you replaced an {{unreferenced}} with a Google search results link wrapped inside a <ref> tag. I don't understand what you could be reporting me for, so go ahead. §hep^Talk 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The correct way of solving is to put Tags to fix the "salvageable" data not completely erase it like its all fiction. Due to Akron having many museums, i placed a google link tht shows every museum loacted in Akron as proof and even asked if it was apropriate to do, but then later replaced with good references. If you look here [9] you can see much data that I did not add such as correcting format by bots, correcting typos by editors, and a big etc... that i dont ave time to point out. What is your excuse for that and attacking me with unimportant things that have been cleared through me getting unblocked? Also i still need an explanation on why sections and a map tht exist on other pages were removed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

one last chance

Im giving you one last chance before i send the report to adminstrators, please explain why are you reverting my edits that is perfectly in city article notabilty guidlines and also a map that is correct and featured on other city pages.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am an administrator - what would you like to report? I am very concerned that you are just pasting stuff back in that was removed back you were edit warring and using many accounts. You say this is like CLeveland's article, but as one small example, all FAs use full information in the ref - see WP:CITE - internet refs should give title, URL, publisher, author and date if known, date accessed. {{cite web}} is useful. Some of the material you just pasted back in has bot edits where the bot tried to fix such ref (""INSERT TITLE") = see diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop lying

What consensus do you see on this talkpage about the removed content????????????????????? Answer the question please, i do not like calling people liers who are not. So be a man and respectful and a wikipedia user and answer my question.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reread the whole talk page here. I have a hard time keeping track of your many accounts, but I am pretty sure you are the only one who has been in favor of the stuff you keep adding. StepShep, Jon Ridinger, and I have opposed this, as did Dr. Cash. Please see WP:NPA and do not call me a liar. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see "the culture, liturature, virtual, film and television sections are messed up and im voting to remove it" Where do you see that quote???? Who called you a lier, are you stephshep? are you his keeper? I see talk about this page needs cleaning and improvement, not removal of sections that you claim to see. Honestly its disqusting to watch people lie when they cant prove there point on facts....This will be my last statement that will ever be made to you editstrator (i honestly doubt you have full adminstrating powers) Rufish, I am a very young man and i act 2 years older than you, have a nice wiki experience. Since it seems from Stephshep, i can choose to do this.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You followed my post here with this section, which you titled "Please stop lying", so I assumed you were calling me a liar. I assure you I have full administrative powers. I have not reblocked you for three reasons: First, I respect Versageek very much and do not want to revert his/her block. Second, I am personally involved in this edit dispute, and I try very hard not to use my administrative tools where such use might be seen as personally motivated. Third, I believe you do want what is best for this article and the encyclopedia, even if we do not agree on the best way to achieve that.

My final suggestions. 1) Try to clean up some references, preferably some of the internet links using {{cite web}}. If you are not sure how to do this, please ask and I will be glad to do a few as examples. 2) Provide the requested information for the airdock and USS Akron picture (as was requested above). I am assuming good faith that it is a US Government work, but it will be deleted on Commons without more information that only you can provide. 3) Try integrating the Rubber Strike of 1936 into the rest of the history section where it talks about the rubber industry. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain that we don't vote, we don't. You will stop attacking other editors; it shows an extreme lack of maturity. I'm tired of you hiding behind an administrator; even if we assume that you're trying to help, you've been disruptive. My username is Stepshep, not stephshep. You will not find the above quote because the rest of us know how to spell. "This will be my last statement that will ever be made", please make that so. §hep^Talk 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag Removal

I think the article has been wikified significantly enough to atleast remove the tag and maybe just put more specific tags defining problems on sections. Is this an ok suggestion?--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you want others to add tags back when we all know they will be removed almost immediately by you without the issues even being fixed. Is it just me or has this article recently filled up with a bunch of amateur photographs? §hep^Talk 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed sub sections headers that were not needed because its better to catagorize like New York City's history (In such such year and this event), also due to overlapping event periods the sub sections couldnt go in proper chronological order which the problem shouldnt exist now.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephshep, Funny how you are jumping to conclusion/lying. You shouldnt try to perdict one's actions, especially when i did fix some issues. I think its just you.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Stepshep. §hep^Talk 04:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have linked plenty of diffs above that show your past actions regarding this. You removed every single tag yourself without fixing the issues; that's not lying it's common knowledge of your actions. §hep^Talk 04:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i have this tendency to spell as Stephshep and it is too intergrated in my stroking that it will not change, you mean like when a section needed a reference and i put one and removed the tag?--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes sockpuppet, I mean when you incorrectly removed section tags that were already in place. §hep^Talk 20:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

<- COUGH - perhaps things wouldn't degenerate so fast if we limited the talk on this page to discussion about the actual article content, not the behavior of individuals? --Versageek 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems counterproductive to fill the article up with maitenance tags if they're going to be removed incorrectly in a matter of a few days. Does it not? §hep^Talk 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this time we will make sure they are not removed until the problem is solved, also tags describing the problem will make editors more likely to fix, from what i see no one fixed problems cause they arent that easily spotted.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, im asking you to be specific by placing tags on sections, simply putting a big tag on top saying what it needs but not where it needs it at wont get anything done as previously proved.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We already HAD section tags that pointed out problems. Go back to the history of the page, the issues have been pointed out. The common editor coming through can see the problems and fix them without being told with an ugly tag what to do, these tags are more for the helpful reader who doesn't edit Wikipedia. Just fix whatever needs fixing. §hep^Talk 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also understand that the multiple issues tag was placed at the beginning because the problems identified are spread throughout the article, not just in a specific section. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok well do this way, first what sections needs references?--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? If you've been here for a more than year and it's not this might not be the place for you. Any section that has more than a 3:1 ratio of sentences to footnotes probably needs help. And don't just put <ref>website</ref>, that doesn't help anybody. Try converting all of the refs you've added to WP:CIT, that would be a big help right now. §hep^Talk 23:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and shut the freak up.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1) Threeblur0, I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you remove the second portion of that comment. 2) using <ref>website</ref> is fine, if you then save the page and visit this tool, which converts bare references into properly-formatted ones according to {{cite web}}. //roux   23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mature. @Roux Reflinks? Please no (please). More than likely it will strip references from {{cite web}} to bare links, switch File: to Image: and do any other number of harmful actions all at once. §hep^Talk 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Or you could run the tool, look at the answers, and cnp only the new citation templates if you're so terribly worried. Also, I have never seen reflinks strip refs into bare links, so I have no idea what you're talking about there. Whatever, clearly there's not much point in trying to help this little conflagration end. Y'all can bicker amongst yourselves. //roux   02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bicker, just stating that reflinks is a detriment. Here's a diff for this very article doing everything I said it would. §hep^Talk 02:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

<---And to clarify, the current tag for citations is for a uniform citation system, though more third-party and reliable sources wouldn't hurt. The main issue is that virtually all of the current references (and all added by you Threeblur) are simply bare links. When adding references, take the time to visit WP:CITET for appropriate citation templates and then fill in the information including title, url, date, access date, author, work, and publisher. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And where the heck did those section headings go? §hep^Talk 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Progress

Ive corected references that needed it, if not all then enough to the point where tags on indivisual sections should be placed to more easily spot out the error. Also, im asking for who ever believes that other existing tags such as "intricate detail" is in order, to explain what the problem is so it can also be fixed.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Polymer research

I had to remove the source for "It (the University of Akron) is regarded as a world leader in polymer research" because the source did not reference the University of Akron as a leader, but rather the Akron area: "Once known as the "Rubber Capital of the World," now a world-renowned center for polymer research and development. There are 400 polymer related companies located in the Akron area." The University of Akron definitely plays a role in that, but this source does not validate the claim in the education section that it is indeed a worldwide leader in the area. Please understand I'm not saying it isn't a leader in polymer research; I'm saying it doesn't have a valid source. Any time an article states "it is regarded as..." or anything like that, there needs to be a third-party source validating that claim. It is regarded? By who? On top of that, be careful using the city's website as a source for any outstanding claims since the best sources are third-party and neutral. The city of Akron's website is hardly third-party and it lacks its own sources. The best use for the city's website is in basic history of Akron or the current structure of the city (departments, government officers, ordinances, etc.). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Along the lines of my previous post, please make sure when using sources that A) they are neutral and third-party (as much as possible), and B) they actually state what they are sourcing. I'm seeing a lot of sources being used that don't actually support the claims they are listed with. If it doesn't say exactly (or close to exactly) what the sentence it is being used to support says, don't make conjectures or leaps of logic and hope no one notices. The whole issue with the Tangiers restaurant (hardly that important in my opinion), is the latest example. First, try to avoid using book summaries as a source; use the actual book with page numbers. Second, the sources that were used never said Cynthia George owned Tangiers; it simply stated she was the "wife of one of Akron Ohio’s most successful restaurateurs," which implies more that she didn't own any of them (Tangiers is not listed specifically) rather than she did. If a source is available that states she was in fact an owner, by all means it should be used. There would also need to be a reference specific to Tangiers being owned at least by her husband since him being one of the areas "most successful restaurateurs" does not automatically mean he owned Tangiers. See WP:SOURCES for more info on using solid sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a bit more. First, this may be nitpicking, but saying that the Tangier was owned by Cynthia George's family is slightly misleading. While her husband is her family, the common usage would make it sound like her parents, uncles, or some other family members on her side were the owners. It should say something like "Cynthia George's husband's family". Second, the comment says that the murder trial was novelized. I don't know if that was true or not, but the two books mentioned are both non-fiction. --Beirne (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made my fixes. I did some searching and Ed George himself appears to be the owner of the Tangier, according to an article from WEWS. The story from Ohio.com just said that the family was operating the restaurant but did not say who the owner was. The WEWS story does, so I replaced the Ohio.com reference with one to WEWS and made Cynthia George's husband the owner. I also took out "novelized" since the books listed that were written about the trial were non-fiction. --Beirne (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

History

The History section has gotten rather large and unorganized. It jumps around randomly to different decades and eras and is fairly confusing to read. For one thing it needs section subheadings rather than just being all under "History" and we need to decide how it should be organized. Usually, going chronologically (or close to it) is the safest route. Also, as far as this specific article goes, the History section does not need to be super detailed; it needs to be thorough, but not highly detailed. Perhaps spinning off a History of Akron, Ohio article is in order as well. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a cleanup tag on the History section in hopes that many of its organizational problems can be solved if more are involved. I will do my best to better organize it, but hopefully others can help as well. Try to look for ways to break the section up that seem logical. There used to be section headings and for some reason they were removed. Please do not remove the cleanup tag until its reasons have actually been met (and that's going to take a lot of work!). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Towpath, architecture, and parks

I move the towpath discussion from architecture to parks. The modern towpath trail has little to do with Akron architecture, and the things that came up around it are parks. A lot of it passes through parks, and much of what goes between parks is managed by the park systems. If you want to talk about the canal's effects on Akron that is fine, but that is a different discussion from the modern recreational towpath. --Beirne (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add some more since my change about the towpath was revoked without further discussion here. Threeblur0 said: "its goes all through city, state maintains or county, summit lake is no park, transportation". This still has nothing to do with the architecture of the city of Akron. Within the Akron boundaries the towpath goes through the CVNP (I think), Sand Run Metro Park, Cascade Valley Park and the Mustill Store area north of downtown. There is some park area as it goes through downtown, such as Lock 3 Park. South of downtown it passes through Summit Lake Park. Now, there are places in between that aren't parks, but that is just because everything can't be a park. The goals of the towpath and the parks are similar, though, in that they provide outdoor recreation. This has nothing to do with the architecture discussed in the rest of the Architecture section, and the towpath description makes no mention of affects on architecture. --Beirne (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember if the Towpath is also a bike trail, but if it is, it could be added to transportation since it is a way for people to go from one place to each other. I see your point though, it's much more a recreational activity than a transportation one; i.e. people don't take the Towpath to get to and from work or school. The same holds true for the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, which is mentioned as "rail transportation". While it definitely "transports" people, it really isn't anything more than a huge amusement park ride as far as I understand it and really doesn't form part of Akron's transportation infastructure. Isn't there an Amtrak station in Akron? If so, that should be mentioned, but not the CVSR. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the section to "Parks and recreation" was a good idea. The towpath is multiuse but like you say more for recreation than transportation. Regarding Amtrak, Akron lost its station again, so the CVSR is all there is. --Beirne (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the CVSR, is it really "transportation" or is it more recreation as well since people don't use the CVSR to commute. I realize there are hopes to use the CVSR as a commuter line, but currently it is strictly for sightseeing, meaning most people don't use it on a regular basis. My understanding for the transportation section is much more in terms of the elements that people use every day or on a regular basis to get around town, like roads, airports, subways, commuter rails, etc. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's it not really transportation. I'd put it in tourism since it is more passive than most recreational activities. --Beirne (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

<----Works for me, especially when I think most Akron residents probably don't use the CVSR regularly (if at all) and most of the CVSR's passengers are most likely people from outside the city of Akron, which would constitute tourism (though it's hardly an "Akron" tourist destination; Akron just has the one small station). Besides, isn't tourism a form of recreation anyway? --JonRidinger (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

World's largest train display?

I have marked the statement that Quaker Square has the world's largest train display as dubious. Searching on the Internet the Miniatur Wonderland in Hamburg, Germany appears to be the largest now, at 11,840 square feet. There are lots of pages claiming that Quaker Square has the largest model train display but I have not yet found one with the square footage for comparison. --Beirne (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur0 keeps reverting the dispute tag without discussing it here. I'll leave it alone for a while in hopes of more discussion, then will put the Dubious tag back. --Beirne (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in Akron anymore so I can't verify this first-hand, but a blog posting from November 14, 2008 says: "I'm really bummed about the largest model train display that used to be at the Depot but is no longer there." Is the display still even at the Quaker Square complex? --Beirne (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are talking about the whole thing, only the front compartment and two sections behind remain parked on a set of tracks stopped at a street train passing thing. It's located about right in the middle of the outside, i took a picture in december of it last year and had it in Akron's old popular culture section the was tooken off due to poor writing, i was gonna put back but the space for picture fitted the statue.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Theeblur0, but the source you provided for this claim isn't a very solid one. In fact, it doesn't even say that Quaker Square is home to any train display, let alone the largest in the world. The statement of being home to the world's largest model train display is the next bullet point after mentioning Quaker Square, so that implies that Akron is home to the world's largest model train display, but not necessarily Quaker Square. Note when it mentions the Akron Aeros, it does add a second sentence to let the reader know the Aeros are the Class AA team of the Cleveland Indians. My biggest problems with the source is first, it's a tourism site designed to promote Akron, so it's hardly a neutral, third-party site, and it has no references, so it could say whatever it wants. Remember, just because it's online doesn't mean it's true. When I Googled "world's largest model train display" nothing from Akron came up, so not sure where that claim came from. In a related note, many of the great things this source says about Akron are dated from 10 years ago, so there is no guarantee any of them are still true. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But Jon, my photo that i know you saw is clearly proof, is it not? I took that picture the same day i took the picture of the Quaker King. It should be good faith to trust that i walked there and you can drive there and see and that its kinda hard to take a picture of a train and the surround building all in one good resolution pic.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know what you are talking about (I've seen what you took a photo of in person), but the photo doesn't prove it's the largest model train display in the world, it just proves that a large amusement-park type train is present at Quaker Square that no longer runs. A train that one can ride in, though, isn't a "model" train set. A model train set is something much smaller. Unless the photo you took has a plaque indicating it is the largest model train in the world, there is no solid source indicating that claim is true. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this before, but it never ran, the tracks arent even made to support a running train, it was a still model (modelscan be of any size, not just minature), so this is what we will do, i'll go get a third party link (since most places with titles dont have plaques identifying themselves as as).--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

<----that would be a good start, as always, but the train you are referring to was once a running train people could ride on, so it's not considered a model train. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What I remember from Quaker Square was a regular miniature model train setup. It used to be in the Depot, then parts were moved into Quaker Square itself. I don't think the largest ever referred to the bigger cars that were for riding, and they aren't described as such in the Akron literature. --Beirne (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

<----Since a lot of time has passed and I was going to remove the comment about the world's largest train display, but then there is nothing left. Even before Akron U. bought Quaker Square there wasn't much to see, and I suspect that now there is even less. I can't even find anything about the Quaker Square retail portion on the Quaker Square Inn page. If I don't get any comments back in a day I'm going to remove Quaker Square from the tourism list. --Beirne (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tourism

Be careful on the tourism section that the actual "attraction" is what is listed. For instance, the Archives of the History of American Psychology is the actual "attraction" (I have reservations about it being under "tourism"), not the University of Akron. The same is true with the statue of the American Doughboy. It is the attraction, not the Summit County Courthouse. I think there also needs to be some discussion on what constitutes a "tourist attraction." --JonRidinger (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of the items in the list don't really count and it is good to talk about it here. I'd suggest removing the psychology archives, and I have a psychology degree. The doughboy is also a real stretch. There are statues around every town and I don't think someone would come to Akron to see the statue, and it would be rare that a local would drive down to see it. The Nature Realm should probably be in Parks and Recreation. The Werner building is cool, but once again I don't think anyone should drive to Akron to see it. --Beirne (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was having much of the same thoughts. There should be a section on listings in the National Register of Historic Places, but even items on that aren't necessarily tourist attractions. The Hower House comes to mind as one of those things unless it actually hosts tours. The Simon Perkins house...are there tours of it? If not, they really can't be considered tourist attractions. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hower House and Simon Perkins house both have tours, so I'd say they are reasonable for the list. They are probably more interesting for locals, but that's OK. I do have one place that could be added, the Goodyear World of Rubber. I haven't put it in, though, because I've heard that it is dated and lame. --Beirne (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamburger Capital

I had to remove the Hamburger Capital because the sources really don't support the claim. One person calling Akron the "Hamburger Capital of the World" does not constitute an established nickname, a concept we have discussed here before. The second source didn't even support that at all, only mentioning Akron's role in being one of the disputed home cities of the hamburger and hosting the festival. I'd hardly call that "public support" either. This is already mentioned in the body of the article, so the only mention that should be in the intro is about it being one of the cities that claims to be the home of the hamburger and host of the Hamburger Festival since whatever year it started. Even then, I'm not sure that's notable enough to be included in the intro, but it could work. Much of the intro needs to be rewritten anyway because it is too long. The intro should essentially summarize the entire article. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The second source, said at the bottom that he called it that, all it took was one notable person to announce to the public that New York was the Big Apple for it to get the name, then overtime it became established by news such as the source i put, cities with alot of nicknames arent always gonna be called by each one every single day, and more than half the city's on here have nicknames listed without a source given such a NYC, as long as it has significant proof to that and why it is called the name then its valid.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one person called NYC the Big Apple at the beginning, but then a lot of other people did too. One promoter calling Akron the Hamburger Capital doesn't make it such. I don't see other people calling it that, and people in lots of other cities would disagree, even though Akron does have the best hamburgs. As Calvin Trillin said: ""Anybody who doesn't think that the best hamburger place in the world is in his home town is a sissy."" --Beirne (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can find a lot more sources that refer to New York as the Big Apple. All nicknames start with one person calling it and then it sticking. Who knows, maybe this will catch on. However, until that happens and there are actual publications referring to Akron as the "Hamburger Capital of the World" it isn't an established nickname. A promoter of the event hardly constitutes a third-party, neutral source, which in this case would actually validate this as an established nickname. In any case, the intro does not need to mention every positive nickname or slogan ever used about Akron; it should only include the most notable. These "sources" should be mentioned within the body of the article in the appropriate section and should include the fact that "some refer" to it as such and the claim is highly disputed (which both sources mention, FYI). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Only a handful of surgeons are trained for laparoscopic surgery?

The article says "Akron General uses laparoscopic surgery, which only a handful of surgeons around the country are trained for". This makes it sound like heart transplants, but I suspect that more than a handful of surgeons are trained in laparoscopic surgery. If someone can provide a valid reference I'll agree with the statement but it just does not sound likely. --Beirne (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the article says that Akron is one of the few cities to provide this service. I can't believe that that is true either. --Beirne (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[[10]] then the sentence will read as: Akron is one of few cities with surgeons trained in the laparoscopic surgery procedure.

The link deals with the number of surgeons who do laparoscopic surgery in Spain, not the US. --Beirne (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Threeblur0 keeps removing my tag marking dubious the statement that Akron is somehow one of the few cities in the county where laparoscopic surgery is done. He has removed the dubious tag without providing a reference in the article and has only provided a link in the talk section that does not apply to the United States. The proper Wikipedia procedure is to discuss the issue here and await resolution before removing the tag, which Threeblur0 has not done. In order to avoid an edit war I am going to take a break, but would like further discussion here. --Beirne (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

high-tech not related to medicine

A statement has been added as the lead-in to the healthcare section pointing out that Akron was listed as a high-tech city by Newsweek in 2001. This has nothing to do with healthcare, but rather polymers (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/8528739/NEO-Diagnostic-Study). This sentence would work elsewhere in the article, but not at the beginning of the healcare section. --Beirne (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Summit Lake reference

The reference for Summit Lake appears right after the statement "Water flows north out of the lake along the old canal to Lake Erie, as well as south to the Gulf of Mexico via the Tuscarawas River". While I believe this is actually true, the reference only mentions water flowing south from the canal. --Beirne (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this chart from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources the water does not flow south from Summit Lake --Beirne (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Summit Academy not interesting

I removed the paragraph saying that Akron was home to the Summit Academy Schools, since the headquarters is actually in Copley. A new version was then put back in saying that Akron had three of the schools and that it is the largest chain of its type of school in the country. I don't know whether it is largest or not, but either way the fact is not noteworthy. There are a number of cities in Ohio with their schools and one would not expect to see Summit Academy listed on their pages. Saying that Akron has three schools of the largest chain of that kind of school is little different than saying it has a number of McDonalds, the largest restaurant chain in the world. This is another case of the strange boosterism for Akron that keeps showing up in the article. Akron has its firsts and its strong points, but including irrelevant superlatives does nothing for the article or Akron. --Beirne (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I was writing this the section was taken back out. Very good. --Beirne (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Road Runner Internet service was in Elmira, New York first

I corrected the statement that erroneously claimed that the Road Runner Internet service started in Akron. It actually started in Elmira, New York. See http://www.articlealley.com/article_847461_10.htm and http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1537552,00.html. This was in 1995. Elmira was a test market but they had the service first. I have no idea what was in the 50's since the Internet didn't exist then. --Beirne (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistake, i meant 95' under the name Southern Tier On-Line Community, but it was changed to Road Runner High Speed Online in 96, Akron was first to get it under the improved program. Also, this http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/data-transmission-broadband/7275360-1.html makes says Akron was established frist and then Elmira.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was tested in Elmira, New York and then officially "debuted" in Akron on September 10, 1996. Akron is where they chose to "commercially debut" the product, but it's not the first place to ever have Road Runner nor was it developed in Akron. Just needs to be clear what was "first" here. Honestly, it's a pretty minor fact since Road Runner is hardly the most dominant Internet server and the reasons for starting in Akron are due to Time Warner's customer base in the region at the time of some 300,000. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Akron first to have CornerShot?

The article states that Akron is the first city in the US to have the CornerShot rifle, but the referred page does not state that. --Beirne (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=131_1197619064 go to link and click read more and it will state that Akron is the first in counrty, also Beirne quit vandalizing, it discredits your name and edits.

Theeblur- Thanks for the source, but remember that the source should be placed in the article when the information is, rather than mass adding info and then adding sources when you feel like it. One suggestion I might make is to use the "quote" feature in the citation tool. This will help other editors know exactly what you saw in the article that supports a given statement. As it stands now, because of many of your past edits, I and other editors usually have to go through and check the source to make sure it actually says what you are saying it does in the article. Please also remember to sign your posts and refrain from accusations of vandalism and credibility. I do recall a certain editor who had numerous sockpuppets and credibility issues that still linger today, so be careful what rocks you throw. I have not seen blatant vandalism from Bernie; I have just seen a few stray words that could be the result of simply overlooking them when editing (I have had the same thing happen to me). All his edits have had accompanying edit summaries and hardly fall under the definition of blatant vandalism. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

1.Your welcome. 2.Thats the same exact source thats been there the whole time that was added exactly when i posted the information. 3.You can go through the revisions to see for yourself. 4.I'll take your suggestion into consideration. As it stands now, you and Bernie only do that. 5.I thought about it but its just a useless effort when a robot usually does it for you and everyone lately who writes on the talkpage knows who i am and i will not refrain from calling vandalism-vandalism and keeping it true. 6.I do know that this makes me laugh and that-that statement has nothing to do with the current topic and has mostly to do with you being maddish cause due to being outdone by me and that i predicted you would bring it up which would make me laugh and your "credibility issues that still linger today" statement has no back up, i havent picked up a rock in months. 7.I have not seen blatant vandalism from Bernie neither; I have seen vandalism that he has not denied though. 8.ok and your point about blantant vandalism is? 9.Bernie can defend himself, if not, he shouldnt be on here. 10.Have a nice day and enjoy your time on Wikipedia. --Threeblur0

Threeblur0, remember the Wikipedia principle of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Calling a typo when I put a "so" on a line is not vandalism. I corrected two capitalization errors in the same change. So there is my denial, which I didn't think was necessary and didn't feel like starting a discussion about. --Beirne (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the citation for the Cornershot, I looked again and now see where Akron officers were the first to access the system. I made an honest mistake, but I removed the sentence from the article because it was more than a month after I posted the tag saying that the reference didn't contain the information and didn't get a reply. So once again, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Beirne (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sauerkraut balls

The article implies that sauerkraut balls were created in Akron, but the reference does not say that. --Beirne (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the new reference says it, but I'm still not sure it is correct. Aside from this and another press release from the city of Akron, I can't find anything else that says that the sauerkraut ball was created here. Or Derv (http://ordervfoods.com/inthenews.html), a manufacturer of sauerkraut balls in Akron, does not make the claim. Nothing says when the sauerkraut ball was invented in Akron or by who. Without further proof it appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the city. --Beirne (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

While I hardly think it's significant enough to even keep in (come on, sauerkraut balls???), the lack of reliable, third-party sources makes it even more suspect. It could be the case of an urban legend. I know growing up in this area I heard a lot about the supposed history; now that I've been able to do a fair amount of research into it, I'm discovering a lot what I heard growing up was a bunch of unverified and false claims that have crept their ways into accepted belief. Not saying this is definitely a case of that, but it could be. I also think that sauerkraut balls are so insignificant that no one kept a record of when they were "invented" since I doubt you could even really pinpoint who or when. --JonRidinger (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sauerkraut balls, the dessert that is eaten country-wide if not world-wide, besides the fact that theres proof Akron is where they were invented, take in consideration no other place claims it, probably due to people from the 60's having knowledge.

Just because no other place claims it does not make it true or notable. And "world-wide" and "country-wide"? Is there a source for that claim? Again, sauerkraut balls aren't even significant enough to have their own Wikipedia article, so I'd hardly call it a significant contribution to world cuisine. It looks more like boosterism more than anything to even mention them, much like many of the "firsts" this article mentions for Akron. Honestly, it's a trivial fact at best. If it were that significant, it would have been mentioned in some sort of credible published history. The "proof" is suspect at best but more importantly the fact itself is not that significant in my opinion. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said your statement, reread my reply if you are referring to me. Yep, type sauerkraut balls in google and many recipes will pop up, some from different states and some from different countries. Alot of things dont but still are important enough to mention in other articles, like people, places, and things, all im sure you have seen if you been on Wikipedia long enough. It looks like your mad. Honestly your fustrated. Maybe its one of them things that werent as popular during intial creation but caught on later so lacks news history. A news release website is suspect?, everyone has an opinion and differ many times. --Threeblur0

I wouldn't call press releases from the city to be proof that the sauerkraut ball was invented in Akron. Even in disputed food inventions, like the hamburger, there is a date and an inventor for the invention, but we know nothing about when the sauerkraut ball was invented or by who. The city could well be making an assumption, figuring no one would dispute it. --Beirne (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, mad? Hardly. Frustrated? No not really, at least not with this. What I'm frustrated with is this article's plethora of cruft and trivia. I'm not saying sauerkraut balls don't exist, but I can find TONS of recipes for all sorts of desserts and dishes. That doesn't make them significant or notable. Sauerkraut itself is significant, but not rolling it into a ball. I ran sauerkraut balls through a search on Wikipedia to see if an article exists and not only does no article exist, they are hardly mentioned at all. In fact, the only mention of the term "sauerkraut balls" at all on Wikipedia is in the Akron, Ohio article. Again, not saying they aren't important to some people, but in the larger scheme, they are hardly a major world-wide cuisine. It's just one of the many uses of sauerkraut. Most of your notability arguments don't hold much water, and no, press releases from the City of Akron that simply state "this was invented in Akron!" do not constitute valid historical references unless they too contain some sort of citation or reference. But that's beside the point. I still don't feel this is significant enough to even be here. The fact that so little info outside recipes exist on them is a testament to their insignificant and trivial nature. We can't go on why we think that is the case, we can only go on what the reality is. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You call it not mad, i call it mad, tomato, tamauta. Denial is not another river in Egypt. Im frustrated with the naming of things that i dont see proof of. Its significant in, that people around the world eat them. Thats like referring to "meat balls" in the same fashion. Well hardly is enough, especially when you can apply everything of meat ball to it. Most of your arguement doesnt hold much water, and the press release in the given source dosent state your statement, go check. Everyone has feelings and differ many times, I feel it is. The fact that world-wide knowledge exist of them and that they are even served at famous notable resturaunts is a testament to their significant and notable nature. Exactly. --Threeblur0

Please stop trying to "read" or interpret my emotional state into this as it is irrelevant to the argument. I find it interesting you use meatball as an example which is significant enough to warrant its own article (meaning it's pretty widespread), yet "sauerkraut ball" as a term exists only in this article. And can you prove this "world-wide" knowledge that exists of them beyond recipes on Google? How about these "famous notable" restaurants that supposedly serve them? Sources? And while the source doesn't verbatim say "this was invented in Akron!" it only says "also an Akron creation" so again it really isn't authoriative since it has no reference and still doesn't satisfy the notability argument, much like the whole issue with the phrase "devilstrip." You'll also note in your source a quote from the mayor of Portland, Maine: "I'm not entirely sure what a sauerkraut ball is but I'm confident I'll soon find out once the Sea Dogs take the series," that doesn't really sound like sauerkraut balls are that well-known, at least in Portland. Like I said, if you can find more neutral (i.e. not City of Akron press releases) sources that really dive into the decorated history of the sauerkraut ball, I can be convinced it is significant. As it stands now, this is an insignificant trivia fact that has minimal historical support, one of all too many in this article. I am also done arguing this point. I can't believe I'm even arguing or discussing sauerkraut balls. Seriously. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)