Talk:Stow, Ohio

message: * There is no way that poverty statistic in demographics can be correct. I suspect vandalism ... how do we verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.59.131 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *its correct. those figures come directly from the 2000 Census. You can look it up yourself on their website if you wish. Bhash 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * Too much of the history section in this article is copied from http://www.smfpl.org/history_stow.htm. I added an "unsourced" tag to this section. --DangApricot 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Education 

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: Likely there are a few problems. Wikipedia policy discourages such sections, per WP:CRITS. Also, it's not clear that this  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "Future source" = no source.  And there clearly seem to be WP:NPOV issues going on here. Levdr1lp / talk 15:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Controversy over Agenda 21 'Smart Growth' in Stow, Ohio