Talk:Urbanism

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article is ridiculously biased in favor of cities and/or urban culture. For example:
"Cities have historically been the driver of culture."
and
"Outside of cities, most people are not exposed to the same level of diversity-in both thought and personal characteristics-as they are within them."
In many places true culture is considered something which arises from the countryside (e.g., rice farmers in Japan, the mid-Western family farm, etc.) And while cities have more diversity because of greater population and different peoples there is also often IMO a level of superficialty in certain notions of "tolerance"; also there is often *less* diversity in terms of religious, political and/or spiritual beliefs (many cities tend to be dominated by liberal secular culture[s]).
Quite frankly I'm surprised an article this obviously biased is considered acceptable to Wikipedia.Historian932 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculously biased 

message: If the author of the previous comment bothered to read the comments in the "Talk" section, he or she would realize that the page appears to be a work in progress.  While I agree with some of the critiques made by others about this page, it is already a vast improvement on the previous "Urbanism" page.  I find the framing of urbanism to be much more sophisticated and the case studies much more illuminating than the previous one, which was so "unbiased" as to be incredibly dull and useless.  I also find that one has to read the entire Wikipedia page--much as one would read the entire entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica--to understand it fully.  I think it should be given a chance to be be read and improved, before being summarily and unfairly dismissed by critics such as Historian932.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naagarik (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in Progress 

message: In order to maintain NPOV, the article needs to address both positives and negatives of urbanism. The positives are well covered. Perhaps sourced data can be included regarding the following negatives of city living: higher cost of living, higher risk of children developing asthma, typically (not always) lower quality public education. Specifically, one can contrast the benefits of reduced heat energy consumption from living in apartments to the loss of exposure to natural daylight (energy is saved by having less surface area exposed to the exterior).
Additionally, the article should address the intellectual theories behind urbanism, including past successes and failures.
Most importantly, the credibility of the article is completely lost in the lack of cited sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpachook (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV required 

message: It appears that there is a class project editing this article.  This is a good thing, but it's not doing much to produce a unified, concise encyclopedia article. Instead, it's produced a rambling overlong jumble of individual elements, which don't do much to illuminate the concept.  The article is far too long, goes into far too much detail about individual projects, and written in excessively academic prose. Would some of the participants please broaden their focus to overall article improvement, removing extraneous detail, improving the prose and focus, and generally improving the article rather than your particular segment? Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks for clarifying.  As I noted, it seems to be going into a lot of depth on individual examples rather than covering a broad discussion of the subject, appropriate to an introductory article for laymen.  Please keep this in mind as you edit: it's very easy to end up with too much detail and too little exposition of the concept, and a round of strategic cuts at the end, together with a summing up and appropriate lead paragraph(s) would be appropriate. A little less reliance on references to thinkers on urbanism and more discussion of urbanism itself (with appropriate references to the originators of the concepts) would help make the prose less academic in tone. I look forward to the finished product! Acroterion (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to Acroterion's gentle nudge, I would like to add that I hope the referencing improves. There appears to be entire sub-sections that don't provide a footnote indicating where the information is coming from. maclean (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class project 

message: After planning to rewrite it, I removed this section as unsalvageable, a mixture of OR and WP:SYNTH. It attributes Bernstein's interpretation of Dewey to Dewey himself, and makes claims not supported by the sources. It cites no one but Bernstein in support of this supposed affinity between pragmatism and urbanism--which, incidentally, is poorly defined--suggesting an over-reliance on a single point of view, in fact a single source. There is no evidence that Bernstein's conscription of James and Dewey is of sufficient importance to the topic of urbanism to merit such a section, or that the view enjoys widespread acceptance. One swallow does not a summer make. ---- Rrburke (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Pragmatism'' section 

message: https://uedxx.net/about/ Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urbanism of European Dictatorships