Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2

The Second Barons Team

Could someone add the second AHL Cleveland Barons team? 2001 (from Lexington)-2006 (to Worchester)12.18.155.16 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done!Hx823 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Shady business

Recently it seems that there has been a little "shady business" going on with this article. For example, the crime section that was here yesterday has been completly deleted. Someone should find out what is going on and put a stop to it.Texas141 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DISREGUARD last post. The crime section has been moved to the bottom of the article and restucturing was done.Texas141 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sports

Is it my imagination that the section dealing with the sports teams looks like one big run-on paragraph without and seperation or distinction between baseball, Indoor Soccer, basketball, soccer, hockey and football?

Hence the second section "Other Sports". The top section for the Cavs, Indians and browns and this section for other stuff like hockey, Indoor Soccer, etc.

Now if someone could break up the paragraph to reflect each individual team?Hx823 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the whole section needs to be split into two different sections, so I made it back to one. I made original paragraph splits clearer, so the section as a whole should show some more organization now. I don't think separate sections/paragraphs for each team are necessary. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just redid it so it is divided between sports that are currently active and those that are not. I also deleted one line that was not necessary for this article. 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzizz (talk • contribs)

Mistake on the Lake (again)

A few people discussed MoL a few years ago, above.

Specialty Definition: Nickname (From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

A nickname is a short, clever, cute, derogatory, or otherwise substitute name for a person or thing's real name, (for example, Nick is short for Nicholas). As a concept, it is distinct from a pseudonym, though there may be overlap between the two.

So yeah, "Mistake on the Lake" is a nickname and one that is relatively well known.

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, google searches:

"Mistake on the Lake" Cleveland = 7,920 hits

"The New American City" Cleveland = 4,220 hits

"Rock 'n Roll Capital" Cleveland = 2,280 hits

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better measure.......

LexisNexis Academic searches of "major U.S. and world publications" ("all available dates" checked):

"Mistake on the Lake" Cleveland = 80

"Rock 'n Roll Capital" Cleveland = 2

"Sixth City" = zero

"New American City" Cleveland = zero

"Metropolis of the Western Reserve" = zero

Unless a clear reason is presented, I'll soon re-introduce "MoL" to list of nicknames, although really in terms of its lack of significance, the entire list should be deleted from the lede.

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stamford, Connecticut is called, by whom I'm not sure, "the city that works," and during the 1940s and 1960s. "Research City" and "Lock City."

But in reality, absolutely nobody calls it by these nicknames........It also had a motto once: Stamford: Always a parking place." Connecticut is called "The Nutmeg State," by absolutely nobody at all..........

Cleveland was once known nationally and even internationally as the "Mistake on the Lake." This was indeed a significant "nickname" and did actually reveal something of mid-century U.S. history.

Nicknames for Cleveland like many or almost certainly most of those cited......none of which I actually recall.....only reveal the mindset of purely local and rabid "boosters" of Cleveland. They may have a place in real estate sales brochures for Cleveland, but with possible exception of "Mistake on the Lake," have little or no actual cultural significance.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)"

OK, here's the thing. If "Mistake on the Lake" is added to the nickname list, people will read it and say: Oh yeah, the mistake on the lake" and will assume it is an active nickname. Putting the term with more regular nicknames will give it more credence and use. Think about how many lazy journalists and bloggers rely on Wikipedia. If Mistake on the Lake is listed as a standard nickname it will spread its use for no good reason. Articles elsewhere will say that Cleveland's nickname is the Mistake on the Lake. That doesn't mean, though, that the name shouldn't be dealt with. It's use and history is discussed in the body of the article in a fair way. I agree, though, that most of the other nicknames aren't credible. They are marketing names that didn't catch on. Forest City is historical and should stay. Coming from Akron, I assumed that the North Coast was all along Lake Erie, and didn't know it was specific to Cleveland, so I don't have a big opinion there. --Beirne (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So Forest City is "historical" and should stay in the article, and "Mistake on the Lake" isn't an "active nickname" and should therefore be removed....

Maybe you could clarify?

I've heard Cleveland called "Mistake on the Lake" by a former resident within the past five years. In fact, it's the only "nickname" I've ever heard applied to Cleveland in conversation, though that's merely my personal experience.

When was "Mistake on the Lake" officially retired?

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern with putting Mistake on the Lake in a list of nicknames isn't if anyone still uses it. My issue is that the pejorative nature of the name requires special handling within the article. BTW, I changed the formatting of your reply so that the conversation flow is easier for others to follow. --Beirne (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What sort of special handling and why?

Giving "special handling" to "pejorative" (or non-pejorative) material would seem to run afoul of Point of View editing guidelines -- especially in dealing with a mere list of nicknames.

You did say "people will assume it's an active nickname."

If that's not your "concern," then why mention it? What constitutes an "active" nickname? "Beantown" is currently used (infrequently) for Boston, but I don't think bean consumption there is any longer notable.

Based on LexisNexis, a good case can be made that "Mistake on the Lake" is the most notable nickname --by a large margin-- for Cleveland.

I'm just looking for something specific and clear about what you're thinking.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The term does not belong in the lead for the same reason you don't see ethnic slurs in the leads of articles about ethnic groups: it's a derogatory term that many find offensive. That's not to say it should be ignored, but it does need to be discussed in a way that can supply meaningful context. If you feel the article inadequately does that, please improve it. However, I do agree that the article has too many nicknames in the lead. I'm going to trim out a few of the less common ones. Please revert the changes if you disagree. - Eureka Lott 21:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison to ethnic slurs is quite on target. I see the parallels, but "Mistake on the Lake" does not carry nearly as much baggage, nor could any reasonable person find it as offensive as the N word or any of the other hot-button pejoratives. The name is a nickname, and as a Clevelander -- and a huge Cleveland booster -- myself, I'd rather see NPOV followed through on here. It's not like people don't know about the nickname, and it's also really not all that offensive.

Furthermore, I support trimming the list of nicknames, but I'm not sure I'd agree with the cuts that were made. I think the most commonly used ones should be listed (including "Mistake on the Lake"). I haven't done any Lexis research on this, but I don't think that "Sixth City" or "C-Town" meet that standard. Further, I doubt that 10 percent of Cleveland could identify it as the "Sixth City." I would rank them as follows: "The Forest City," "The Cleve," "The Rock 'n' Roll Capital of the World" "Mistake on the Lake," "America's North Coast," "The New American City," "The Metropolis of the Western Reserve," "C-Town" and "The Sixth City." — Bdb484 (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames for a major city are in the category of trivia.

They belong at the bottom of the article, if anywhere.

LexisNexis searches show published references to the search term. You can get access through major libraries.

A search would probably give a fairly good indication that "Mistake on the Lake" is the most widely known nickname for Cleveland.

Whether it puts Cleveland in a positive or negative light is purely an issue for local real estate brokers and tourism promoters.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem putting the list at the bottom of the article, but agreeing that they are in the trivia category I wouldn't mind if the list were deleted altogether. If "Mistake on the Lake is going to be there, though, it should be marked as derogatory. This is normal practice in dictionaries for racial epithets and makes sense here. Like it or not, many people consider Wikipedia authoritative and by mixing a derogatory name in with neutral or positive ones it implies equivalence. EurekaLott's point about ethnic slurs is a good one. The demonym for Poland is listed at Pole/Polish and does not include Polak, even though it is a well-known term for Poles. Why not? Because it is an insulting term that doesn't deserve equivalence with the others. Another reason why this requires some special handling is that there aren't really Wikipedia guidelines for insulting nicknames for cities. I'm trying to think of another city with a nickname this insulting and can't think of one. It doesn't mean they don't exist, but it isn't a common situation. So the the nearest thing we have to precedent is the ethnic name example.--Beirne (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Beirne: You're reaction to MoL is essentially an outlier. The LexisNexis search shows that it's appeared widely in major publications, (therefore widely accepted in various contexts by editors ). As an "insult" or "slur" it's about on a par with "Rust Belt" and almost nobody get's upset about it. If you shouted "Mistake on the Lake" to some drunken Clevelander gang, I don't think they'd come after you & might if anything, just laugh.

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes my reaction outlier. I specifically said that the phrase should be in the article, so it would pass your search test. The fact that the phrase shows up in an article does not mean anything, it is how it is used that matters. It appears in the Wikipedia article now in a sentence that gives it some context, which is appropriate. Also, the quantity of reference is irrelevant anyhow. When I was a kid lots of people referred to Poles as Polaks, and had worse names for other ethnic groups. That would not then mean, then, that the word Polak should have been listed with Pole and Polish as terms for a Pole. I'm repeating a point I made earlier, but I'm doing so specific to the quantity of usage issue. --Beirne (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LexisNexis search: "Polack Pole Polish" = 35 returns. Published references (in reputable sources) are actually a reasonable metric.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I used Polack because it was less offensive than other ethnic slurs that I could have used. My point, though, which you ignored, is that the quantity is irrelevant, it is the nature of the name. Third, published reference counts are not a useful metric because it does not consider the context in which the term was used. --Beirne (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Let me add my voice to those who correctly state that it is totally inappropriate to have MBTL as part of the article lede. Rather than a nickname, it is at best a good joke -- as such it deserves some mention in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is "MBTL" supposed to mean?

By any reasonable definition, Mistake on the Lake is a nickname and belongs on any list of such names. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but Americans know Cleveland far better by this name than "Forest City or "North Coast" or "Western Reserve JoeLand" or whatever trivial names may be floating around amongst members of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce et alia.

I'd contend that a list of nicknames for ANY city, and especially a lesser city like Cleveland, are TRIVIA and should receive little or no coverage.07:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on the Lake is discussed in the article, so what's the problem? I agree that nickname lists tend to include dubious names once they got beyond the official ones, though. --Beirne (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on the Lake is a nickname

Beirne began discussion of this by saying Mistake on the Lake isn't a nickname. But this is simply incorrect and a bit like saying black is white.

Beirne simply has a personal point of view that the nickname is offensive, and THEREFORE should be removed from a list of nicknames.

But a list is simply a list.

So it's back on the list for the moment.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering calling a city a mistake to be offensive isn't a personal view, it just shows that I know how to read English. A list is not just a list. Putting an insulting name like MotL in the list with positive ones gives it credibility as an accepted nickname, which it isn't. It is merely an insult that a lot of people use. --Beirne (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Mistake on the Lake is a widely known nickname for Cleveland, part of the Rust Belt.

Why would a consensus be required for these utterly simple facts?

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts may be facts, but consensus is required for where, if anywhere, the facts belong in the article. A derogatory term previously used in particular circumstances is different from a nickname -- regardless of how common that term may have once been. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom: Please do consult a dictionary!! It's something editors can and should frequently use.

You just made up a unique and incorrect definition for the term "nickname."

Without adherance to basic definitions regarding the English language, rational discussion becomes infeasible.

If a list of nicknames is to be presented, and the most widely known nickname is to be excluded based on a particular point of view, then the article obviously suffers and Wikipedia's most basic and simple policies are to be trashed.

Perhaps more importantly, any slightly informed neutral reader will immediately note the omission, and the article's overall credibility thereby goes down the drain.

My other suggestion still stands: Nicknames are utter trivia, and don't belong in the lede.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually look up "epithet" and see if that doesn't exactly define how MBTL has been used in the past. Perhaps if you quit edit warring on this term and accept the need for consensus, then it would be possible to discuss the proposal to remove all nicknames from the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamity- "adherance" should be "adherence" and, earlier, "get's" should have been "gets". If you're going to be antagonistic, at least do it with minimal hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.93.26 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WHA?

Again Tom, your terms aren't useful. "MBTL?" What does it mean?

When confronted with unfamiliar acronyms, I often use this site: [[1]] which returns nothing for "MBTL."

So sorry, but I'm utterly stumped and can't respond.

The most basic, "go to" tool for editors, is the dictionary. You'll find there the meaning of "nickname," and other useful information, and perhaps based on that, one could then hold a meaningful discussion.

So first go to the dictionary. Afterwards, if you like, you can certainly consult a thesaurus.

But let's at least keep the discussion grounded in mutually understandable and basic language.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom uses Mistake by the Lake. That seems pretty easy to figure out. Regarding the dictionary, I looked up a couple of ethnic slurs in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Wop starts out saying that the term is usually offensive and the entry for Polack says that the term is usually disparaging. The dictionary does this to help one understand the full meaning of the word. Since Mistake on the Lake is also disparaging, it is important to describe the phrase in some context in the article, as has been done. Why is it so important that it be in the nickname list when it is already covered in more detail within the article? --Beirne (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Beirne: Let's try to keep discussion on track. What does MBTL mean?

I might introduce the term "kaufmoschepop" and insist it's relevant to a discussion of Cleveland, but this would constitute a wild and entirely unhelpful tangent, a bit like introducing unknown acronyms.

What is a simple defintion of "nickname?" Things are tending toward extreme drift from focused talk.

Why is Mistake on the Lake to be excluded from a simple list of names when it is really the most widely known among the supposed list?

Nickname in fact include both neutral, complimetary and disparaging terms. People (readers) REALLy aren't that stupid, and DO actually know this stuff.

If a substantial list of nicknames for Cleveland is to exclude its best-known nickname, then perhaps there should be a statement explaining its exclusion.

The statement might read "two (or more) editors object to including one widely known nickname for Cleveland, that is NOT included on this list, because it MAY reflect poorly on the city.

Well, here is another alternative for the list: "Nicknames for Cleveland which reflect a strictly positive view of the city include "Great town for real estate purchases" ...or whatever the couple of editorial boosters may find and prefer...

I personally find this entire discussion highly distasteful in terms of reasonable and responsible Wikipedia policy.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So you HONESTLY didn't know what MBTL meant? That seems strange since when you click on Mistake on the Lake, which you like to add to your edits, it leads right to a page titled "The Mistake by the Lake". In any event, since you are no longer "stumped", please explain, by citing appropriate wikipedia policy and guidelines, why consensus does not apply in these circumstances and why you keep reverting the text? Do you intend to continue with this disruptive practice?

After you do the above, then explain why an epithet, related to a particular period in the past, should be considered as a current nickname and listed in the lede. Perhaps you could cite a recent, serious news article in which the epithet isused outside of its historical context as if it were simply a non-controversial reference to Cleveland used in the same way that New York and the Big Apple or Virginia and the Old Dominion are used interchangeably. And please, try to answer without casting aspersions on other editors' motives. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LexisNexus search "Mistake by the Lake" Cleveland limited to the past two years:

1. From the Ashes of '69, a River Reborn The New York Times, June 21, 2009 Sunday, Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 18, 847 words, By CHRISTOPHER MAAG

2. Having survived the trip from the Mistake by the Lake, we dole out some unsolicited advice on how to make Hogtown more livable The Toronto Sun, November 28, 2007 Wednesday, SPORTS; It's A Living; Pg. S19, 659 words, BY STEVE BUFFERY, TORONTO SUN

3. THE NBA DRAFT; THE LEAGUE; Big deals are the big deal; An average draft (after Griffin) is downgraded in importance with O'Neal joining James in Cleveland and Carter headed to the Magic Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2009 Friday, SPORTS; Sports Desk; Part C; Pg. 1, 765 words, MARK HEISLER, ON THE NBA

4. First-half ballers, bummers USA TODAY, February 17, 2009 Tuesday, SPORTS; Pg. 4C, 696 words, Jon Saraceno

5. Mistakes by the Lake: Cleveland Drills Wizards; Cavaliers 121, Wizards 85 The Washington Post, January 24, 2008 Thursday, SPORTS; Pg. E01, 660 words, Ivan Carter; Washington Post Staff Writer

6. BROWNS GETTING A CHANGED MAN Daily News (New York), January 9, 2009 Friday, SPORTS; Pg. 76, 671 words, BY VIC ZIEGEL

7. Break up the Browns; Cleveland drops 51 points on Bengals The Toronto Sun, September 17, 2007 Monday, SPORTS; Pg. S5, 502 words, BY ROB LONGLEY

8. If Wang really is OK, what role can he fill? Newsday (New York), May 29, 2009 Friday, SPORTS; Pg. A68, 990 words, ERIK BOLAND

9. Posted Sports NP National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), October 31, 2008 Friday, SPORTS; Posted Sports; Pg. S2, 720 words, Jim Bray and Bruce Arthur, National Post

10. A worthy cause to champion The Boston Globe, October 17, 2007 Wednesday, SPORTS; Pg. D5, 822 words, Bob Ryan Globe Staff

11. A worthy cause to champion The Boston Globe, October 17, 2007 Wednesday, SPORTS; Pg. D2, 855 words, Bob Ryan

12. A worthy cause to champion The Boston Globe, October 17, 2007 Wednesday, SPORTS; Pg. D1, 856 words, Bob Ryan

13. Pigging out; Petrino barely gave it the old college try National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), December 14, 2007 Friday, SPORTS; NFL Picks; Pg. B12, 582 words, Bruce Arthur, National Post

14. Cleveland State's Healing Begins With a Bid The New York Times, March 13, 2009 Friday, Section B; Column 0; Sports Desk; Pg. 12, 1214 words, By GREG BISHOP

15. Man-genius making old team look awfully dumb Daily News (New York), January 9, 2009 Friday, SPORTS; Pg. 74, 811 words, BY TIM SMITH

16. Pigging out; Coach Bobby Petrino barely gave Atlanta the old college try before running off to Arkansas National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), December 14, 2007 Friday, SPORTS; NFL Picks; Pg. S8, 863 words, Bruce Arthur, National Post

17. Upon Inspection, New Home Has Some Sweet Aspects to It The Washington Post, March 30, 2008 Sunday, SPORTS; Pg. D11, 1382 words, Thomas Boswell

18. Not a swoon over Miami; Martinez helps Mets to get back on track The Boston Globe, September 23, 2007 Sunday, SPORTS; Pg. C7, 2273 words, NICK CAFARDO

Search Terms [("Mistake by the Lake" Cleveland)](18)

Source [Major U.S. and World Publications]

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Epithet

from Encyclopedia Britanica:

epithet

literature

Main

an adjective or phrase that is used to express the characteristic of a person or thing, such as Ivan the Terrible. In literature, the term is considered an element of poetic diction, or something that distinguishes the language of poetry from ordinary language. Homer used certain epithets so regularly that they became a standard part of the name of the thing or person described, as in “rosy-fingered Dawn” and “gray-eyed Athena.” The device was used by many later poets, including John Keats in his sonnet “On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer”:

Oft of one wide expanse had I been told

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An example

The Guardian (London)

June 19, 2000

New York stories: We will survive: A museum for folk music

BYLINE: Michael Ellison

SECTION: Guardian Features Pages, Pg. 16

LENGTH: 779 words

Nashville has the Country Music Hall of Fame, Memphis the new Rock and Soul Museum, Chicago memorialises (as they like to say) the blues at the old Chess studios and Cleveland has the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. Cleveland? The Mistake on the Lake is not exactly the first place your mind turns to when you think about the dominant cultural force of the second half of the 20th century. The Hall of Fame was supposed originally to be headed for New York but Cleveland had the desire and found the money. New York, indeed, makes no contribution to the movement dedicated to honouring the works of the leading figures in popular music (jazz, before anyone objects, is not popular).

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

response

And here [2] is the definition from Dictionary.com:

1. any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality: “Richard the Lion-Hearted” is an epithet of Richard I. 2. a characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or thing and often used in place of an actual name, title, or the like, as “man's best friend” for “dog.” 3. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc.

I’m using the 3rd definition because that is how MBTL is most often used. I find it hard to believe that you, or Britannica for that matter, are unaware of the pejorative use of the word.

Now to your list -- response as you numbered them:

1. From the article, “The fire turned Cleveland into “The Mistake by the Lake,” a national punch line that would endure for decades. Meanwhile, the city worked to reclaim its river.” That would be “punch line” as in a joke, not a nickname. And as I said, it is talking about Cleveland in the past with the rest of the article indicating that the city has recovered.

2. A comical article by a sportswriter talking, in jest, about selling the naming rights of cities? I asked for serious articles.

3, 4. Sports trash talking? Couldn’t find the articles so why don’t you provide the actual quotes and context.

5. More sports -- the article alludes to the term in a negative fashion, but is used to criticize the Wizards play. A writer trying to be clever who is familiar with the term. Read again what I was asking for -- “Perhaps you could cite a recent, serious news article in which the epithet is used outside of its historical context as if it were simply a non-controversial reference to Cleveland used in the same way that New York and the Big Apple or Virginia and the Old Dominion are used interchangeably.”

6. Yet more sports. From the article -- “If Mangini couldn't find a way to drag his Jets across the finish line, that won't be his problem his first couple of years in the city they used to call The Mistake by the Lake.” The operative phrase would be “used to call”.

7. More sports. The quote, “For one day at least, the Cleveland Browns were anything but a mistake by the lake, upsetting the heavily favoured Cincinnati Bengals, 51-45.” An allusion to past events, but he’s talking about the Browns not the city.

8, 9. Sports again. Couldn’t find -- Please provide the quote and context.

10, 11, 12. Same SPORTS article three times? The quote -- “The stadium didn't help. People called it The Mistake By The Lake, among other things. It was built way too large (78,000) in 1931, when Cleveland was something like the fourth-largest city in the land ...” He’s talking about the old stadium, not the city.

13. Sillier and sillier. The actual quote -- “Buffalo (+5.5) at Cleveland It used to be we would label this the battle of the mistakes by the lake. But not only are the cities of Buffalo and Cleveland underrated in terms of charm -- no, seriously -- but this is more accurately described as the battle of the teams of ... destiny.” Another “used to be” that refers to both Buffalo and Cleveland. Why don’t you go to the Buffalo article and add a new nickname.

14. Sports, sports, sports. The actual quote -- “He did something that nobody was able to do, bringing a team from nowhere, from ‘The Mistake by the Lake,’ into the limelight.” Of course, the limelight was reached back in 1990 when MBTL was itself fading from the limelight.

15. More sports. The quote -- “In naming Mangini as coach less than two weeks after he was fired by the Jets, does that mean the Browns know something the Jets don't? Or is this just another Mistake by the Lake?” Go back to what I asked for -- you’ve just provided another derogatory allusion.

16. Already listed above.

17. From the article -- "Imagine San Francisco's joy at leaving frigid Candlestick Park for unequaled AT&T Park or Cleveland switching from "the Mistake By The Lake" to broad-shouldered Progressive Field." Again, the reference is to the stadium, not the city.

18. A section of the article discusses the Indians pospects and is titled "Few mistakes by the lake". Obviously this is an allusion to the past usage of the phrase -- it doesn't mean it's used as a nickname though.

As far as your unnumbered addition, the Guardian is obviously using MBTL in a derogatory manner as an epithet rather than as a nickname.

Bottom line, you have failed to provide a single instance in which a serious article used MBTL in a non-derogatory manner as a reference to Cleveland as it exists today. Since you SURELY read the articles before you posted them as proof, I have to assume this is the best you have to offer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is a derogatory nickname not a nickname? That sounds like joke of some kind, but I don't have the punchline.

Is the list a neutral list, or is it edited to reflect a particular view about Cleveland?

Of course I'm not going to read dozens of articles about this. The search engine works fine. "Mistake by the Lake" Cleveland returns more than 200 citations; "Mistake on the Lake" Cleveland returns 80.

Search of "C-Town" Cleveland returns 16 citations.

Search of "Sixth City" Cleveland returns four citations.

Here's a few with focus on international coverage that I've skimmed with relevant bits included: The Times (London)

January 31, 2004, Saturday

Gay video thrills of baseball star lead to pitch for forgiveness

BYLINE: Owen Slot

SECTION: Sport; 35

LENGTH: 255 words

YOU OUT THERE may know differently -in which case we would love to hear from you -but it would appear to remain the case that, across the board in the world's leading sports, there is not a single openly gay sportsman of significant stature. That's sportsman, not sportswoman, by the way, and Ian Roberts, the Australia rugby league star, doesn't count because he's retired and we are exempting the horsey world, too, where homophobia doesn't apparently beat so strongly.

Fast forward then, to Cleveland, the city aptly (today, at least) known as The Mistake on the Lake. It is there that Kazuhito Tadano, the Cleveland Indians baseball pitcher, gave a press conference in which he asked for forgiveness for having once appeared in a gay porn video in which he engaged in a homosexual act

The Times (London)

August 17, 2000, Thursday

Arts

BYLINE: Geoff Brown

SECTION: Features

LENGTH: 429 words

EDINBURGH CONCERT. Cleveland/Dohnanyi. Usher Hall Edinburgh thrills to the Cleveland sound

IN TRIBUTE to the bracing winter weather hurtling over Lake Erie, Clevelanders have been known to call their fair city "the mistake on the lake". But there's no mistake about the Cleveland Orchestra.

Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)

October 21, 1995 Saturday Late Edition

World Series puts the axe to political correctness

BYLINE: Lisa Olson

SECTION: SPORT; Pg. 71

LENGTH: 819 words

HERE are some things you won't see when America's baseball World Series starts tomorrow: you won't see headlines proclaiming: "Indians scalp the Braves". You won't see Atlanta pitcher Greg Maddux doing a war dance from the mound after fanning another batter. You won't see Cleveland shortstop Omar Vizquel .......THEY play in a city derided as a "mistake on the lake", and for centuries they have inflicted losing seasons on generations of fans. The joke used to be the only way the Cleveland Indians could win a championship is in a movie, which they did in Major League.

The Sunday Times (London)

October 3, 1993, Sunday

Bowled over

BYLINE: Nik Cohn

SECTION: Features

LENGTH: 2066 words

It's known as the Mistake by the Lake. Cleveland, Ohio a steel and auto town, home of Standard Oil may not be strong on looks, says Nik Cohn, but its bowling facilities are second to none.

ADWEEK (U.S.)

February 28, 1994, All

The Cleveland Special

SECTION: TAKES; Taking Steps

LENGTH: 127 words

HIGHLIGHT: Now, as for loyalty from brands; why they're dancing in Cleveland; weighing the impact of interactive television; the surprising first read for the nation's sharpest business minds; and more.

Reckoning that potential clients might look down their noses at an ad agency based in The Mistake on the Lake, Meldrum & Fewsmith is using a series of self-promotion ads partly to correct the misimpression of Cleveland as home to nothing more than "Saturday night bowling leagues and pierogi-eating contests." At the same time, the agency wants to remain true to its Cleveland roots while offering some special enticement to likely prospects. So, instead of handing out tickets to the city's famous symphony orchestra or other high-brow institutions, it's instead luring business with "something only a Cleveland ad agency could offer: Free polka lessons with the first exciting ads we create for you." Dancing fools with loose accounts, take note.

One could go on like this indefinitely, but it's doubtful that Cleveland boosters would find it enlightening.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to read dozens of articles about this. The search engine works fine.

Counting search engine results can be an interesting way to gauge interest and begin research, but numbers alone are insufficient. When editing an article, you need to interpret the results to consider items like context and neutrality. If you aren't already familiar with it, please read Wikipeida's search engine test page. We're glad you know how to use a search engine and a dictionary, but you continue to ignore the fact that the article already addresses the subject. You're obviously unsatisfied with the current state of the article, but what you dislike (other than the absence of the term from the lead) remains unclear. - Eureka Lott 20:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stated reasons for omitting a particular nickname are 1) it's not a nickname and 2) it's no longer used as a nickname and 3) a few editors, presumably from Cleveland, believe that derogatory nicknames should not appear on the list because, I gather, they are personally offended.

Tell me if I'm missing any other "reasons."

So let me be clear why the three "reasons" above fall short.

1)

Citation: New York Daily News; 10/5/07 "Nickname: Mistake on the Lake" page 2

Citation: WaPo 1/7/95 page H5 "Cleveland nickname: Mistake by the Lake."

Citation: Phil. Enquirer 7/23/96 page A03 "The Mistake by the Lake, its nickname and scourge for generations, is now home to..."

Etc.

2)

Numerous other citations from past 24 months show that the term indeed remains in current use.

3)

There may well be terms and words that are in such poor taste as to be beyond the pale. These essentially never appear in major publications. The phrase "Mistake on the Lake" obviously isn't in this category.

A list of nicknames or other facts should be neutral and not tending to advance a particular point of view.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-responsive. The issue is whether a negative epithet should be treated the same as the neutral nicknames IN THE LEDE OF THE ARTICLE. Obviously EVERYTHING won't fit in the lede, and including the phrase in question, without also including clarification of its origin and the manner in which it is used, creates a lede that vastly overemphasizes the negative. Despite your UNRETRACTED claim, this is a consensus call and the consensus is strongly against you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Non-responsive"

If, as you now say, the issue is whether a negative nickname should be treated the same as what you characterize as "neutral" nicknames in the lede, I would certainly say, again, the answer is obvious:

"Yes, negative nicknames should be treated the same."

Anything less is to apply a "non-neutral point of view."

It's not that CONTENT of Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral as you may be seen to imply.

Rather, the correct notion is that EDITING is supposed to be neutral.

In other words (and this is quite basic), one doesn't eliminate negative information merely for the sake of emphasizing positive information, nor certainly, visa versa.

But that is indeed what you apparently suggest.

The list of names should be composed based on their frequency of use, and not just within the Cleveland area.

A lot of evidence is presented that "Mistake on the Lake" is currently the most widely known nickname for Cleveland around the world.

Zero evidence is presented to the contrary.

Therefore, unless some further credible evidence is available (it's not), a list of nicknames should quite obviously include the term.

So then, am I misunderstanding the issue? Am I "non-responsive?"

Can anybody contradict these points in a rational, clear and credible manner??

If a group of Wikipedia editors say the earth is flat, ought then a Wikipedia article on the earth reflect this because of a "consensus?"

(Unlike some or all of the "consensus" editors, I have no emotional stake in Cleveland. I don't live there. I've never been there. I don't follow or care about sports rivalries or teams. My only relevant disclosure is that I originated an article on the Cleveland artist Kálmán Kubinyi.)

Calamitybrook (talk)

Who is eliminating negative information? MotL has been in the article for a long time and none of us have a problem with it. --Beirne (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The list in the lede is soley at issue.

Extensive evidence suggests that on a worldwide basis, "Mistake on the Lake" is the most widely used current nickname for Cleveland.

Any evidence to the contrary, if available, should be presented by "consensus" editors.

If there is no contrary evidence to what is currently posted, then the nickname should, by any rational standard, be included on the list in question.

Am really trying to make this clear. Sorry for the trouble.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are either “misunderstanding the issue” or ignoring the issues. You continually talk about the elimination of material, when, in fact, the material is in the article -- just not where you want it. While we have only discussed your 3RR problems with MBTL, you have also continually added “rust belt” to the first sentence even though it is referenced and linked in the second paragraph of the lede. Rather than attempting to maintain a NPOV FA article at its current level, you seem bound and determined to tilt the balance in a negative direction.

You claim that , “A lot of evidence has been presented that "Mistake on the Lake" is the most widely known nickname for Cleveland around the world.” In fact, all you have presented is anecdotal evidence that has very little or nothing to do with establishing whether actual RELIABLE SOURCES consider it is currently “ the most widely known nickname for Cleveland.” See WP:SYN which states “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C.”

You have been advised of the weaknesses of your case as described in Wikipedia:Search engine test, yet you have failed to address why this doesn’t apply to you.

Based on this source [3] Forest City, which has been around since the 1850s is the single most significant nickname. Of course, it isn’t very useful as either a punch line or an epithet. This other reliable source [4] dedicates a whole chapter beginning in 1980 to describing Cleveland as the Comeback City. There are only one or two references to MBTL. Your questionable sports references to the contrary, it seems this makes the case that for almost the last 30 years Comeback City trumps MBTL .

As the article shows, the term arose from very specific circumstances that no longer exist. It would be a violation of NPOV to do as you suggest and add the phrase to the lede which would INACCURATELY suggest that those conditions still exist. As WP:LEAD clearly states, “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article” and “In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources.” It is hard to make the argument that this epithet, which takes up all of three sentences in one section out of ten sections in the body of the article, is significant enough to be included in the lede. And, indeed, simply mentioning a negative term without explaining its total significance and historical context is also a violation of NPOV.

As far as your claim of bias against anybody that doesn’t agree with you (“Unlike some or all of the "consensus" editors, I have no emotional stake in Cleveland”), you certainly seem to have some sort of EMOTIONAL attachment to lead you to a near 3RR violation. You can’t make your case with facts and logic, so you attack those you disagree with. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

You present no evidence that "Mistake on the Lake" is NOT the most widely known and used current Cleveland nickname.

You offer no case for why unequal editing treatment should be accorded to positive and negative information, or how this could be considered "neutral" editing.

As "proof" that "Forest City" is Cleveland's most significant nickname, you offer a local Web site on all things Cleveland, that briefly describes the uncertain orign of the term, and is silent on questions of its "significance," relative or otherwise.

You misconstrue LexisNexis as an Internet search engine. It's a proprietary database. You can get access through certain libraries.

It's not an "ancedote" that that "Mistake on the Lake" is a widely and frequently published term around the world currently, and that the other nicknames are not.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamity says:You present no evidence that "Mistake on the Lake" is NOT the most widely known and used current Cleveland nickname.

Response: You’re the one making the claim -- prove your case using reliable sources.

Calamity says: You offer no case for why unequal editing treatment should be accorded to positive and negative information, or how this could be considered "neutral" editing.

Response: The MBTL is fully explained in the body of the article. You have indicated NOTHING that suggests its treatment there is not neutral. You continue to ignore that the issue IS NOT inclusion but LOCATION in the article. Let me repeat what I said last time and that other editors have raised and you have continually failed to respond to:

As the article shows, the term arose from very specific circumstances that no longer exist. It would be a violation of NPOV to do as you suggest and add the phrase to the lede which would INACCURATELY suggest that those conditions still exist. As WP:LEAD clearly states, “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article” and “In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources.” It is hard to make the argument that this epithet, which takes up all of three sentences in one section out of ten sections in the body of the article, is significant enough to be included in the lede. And, indeed, simply mentioning a negative term without explaining its total significance and historical context is also a violation of NPOV.

Calamity says: As "proof" that "Forest City" is Cleveland's most significant nickname, you offer a local Web site on all things Cleveland, that briefly describes the uncertain origin of the term, and is silent on questions of its "significance," relative or otherwise.

Response: The website in question is operated by Case Western Reserve University and you can buy a printed version of it at [5]. I dare say it is a more reliable source on the history of the city of Cleveland than one of your favorite sources, the sports page of the Boston Globe. Same with the other reference I submitted from Google books.

Calamity says: You misconstrue LexisNexis as an Internet search engine. It's a proprietary database. You can get access through certain libraries.

Response: The same principle applies. You are using the raw results of a database search to make your independent judgement on what the raw results mean. I directed you to WP:SYN -- why don’t you explain why it doesn’t apply to you.

Calamity says: It's not an "ancedote" that that "Mistake on the Lake" is a widely and frequently published term around the world currently, and that the other nicknames are not.

Response: Actually what is anecdotal is the news stories that you submitted that discuss old Cleveland Stadium, a gay Japanese ball player, and the betting line on a 2007 Browns- Bills game. What is a violation of WP:SYN and WP:OR is your attempts to string these anecdotes together to support your claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited entry in the Cleveland site says nothing about the significance of "Forest City" relative to other nicknames. I agree, however, that it's a good, though parochial, source.

No need to repeat that "Mistake on the Lake" is a widely and frequently published term, and that the other terms on the list are not.

A brief, representative list of names should include those best-known and most widely used, based on available evidence.

Composing the list based on whether names may, in an editor's opinion, help or harm Cleveland's image, is non-neutral.

Dismissing LexisNexis as an "unreliable" means of determining frequency of the various terms' occurance in published form may be unreasonable.

01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamity says: The cited entry in the Cleveland site says nothing about the significance of "Forest City" relative to other nicknames. I agree, however, that it's a good, though parochial, source.

Response: In fact, the reliable source doesn’t mention MBTL at all as far as I can tell from the index and using the site’s search engine. That is significant to this discussion. The other book only mentions it twice, but not as a nickname (a point I’ve made earlier that you’ve failed to address) since none of the words are capitalized.

Calamity says:No need to repeat that "Mistake on the Lake" is a widely and frequently published term, and that the other terms on the list are not.

Response: The need is to produce something besides your Original Research and Synthesis that supports you. Even if the “term” appears frequently in print, this does not prove that reliable sources consider it a CURRENTLY ACCEPTABLe nickname for the city. To repeat my challenge that you failed to meet, “Perhaps you could cite a recent, serious news article in which the epithet is used outside of its historical context as if it were simply a non-controversial reference to Cleveland used in the same way that New York and the Big Apple or Virginia and the Old Dominion are used interchangeably.”

Calamity says: A brief, representative list of names should include those best-known and most widely used, based on available evidence.

Response: And what wikipedia policy says that you must have innocuous information and controversial information at the exact same spot in an article? Let me yet again repeat the key issue that you refuse to address:

As the article shows, the term arose from very specific circumstances that no longer exist. It would be a violation of NPOV to do as you suggest and add the phrase to the lede which would INACCURATELY suggest that those conditions still exist. As WP:LEAD clearly states, “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article” and “In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources.” It is hard to make the argument that this epithet, which takes up all of three sentences in one section out of ten sections in the body of the article, is significant enough to be included in the lede. And, indeed, simply mentioning a negative term without explaining its total significance and historical context is also a violation of NPOV.

Calamity says: Composing the list based on whether names may, in an editor's opinion, help or harm Cleveland's image, is non-neutral.

Response: A Straw man argument. The reason for the omission in the lede and the INCLUSION elsewhere is given right above.

Calamity says: Dismissing LexisNexis as an "unreliable" means of determining frequency of the various terms' occurance in published form may be unreasonable.

Response: I understand -- you think wikipedia policy on Original Research and Synthesis unfairly thwarts your agenda. I, and most others, feel it is a good idea to have policies that thwart agenda driven edits. You acuse others of having an agenda, yet you have failed to show that ANY relevant information regarding Cleveland is not in the article. Being unable to do that, you resort to attempts to skew the lede so that it is not reflective of the entire article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

North Shoreman, how do you propose to cite anything controversial if you dismiss references to multiple specific sources as invalid by being synthesis? Calamitybrook is giving multiple examples of the usage of this nickname after arguing from Lexis-Nexis results — unless you're willing to say that the many reliable sources that depend on L-N are relying on an unreliable source, there's no reason not to trust L-N. It's a far better indicator of actual coverage than Google News or anything else of that sort; if it weren't, why would anyone subscribe to it? You say that Calamitybrook hasn't proven the prevalence of Mistake on the Lake — I see plenty of evidence for that, but where's the evidence that Forest City (or anything else) is the most common nickname? The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History says that it's Cleveland's most longstanding nickname, not its most common. As the next-to-last line above says, you appear to be opposed to inclusion of this nickname because it would hurt Cleveland's image, which itself is POV. Reading this discussion just now — indeed, for the first time — I've been quite negatively impressed by the process of keeping this name off the page; you're treating article even more sensitively than a BLP. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to the section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources that says an individual's analysis of the RAW DATA from a Nexis-Lexis search is a reliable source. As far as "keeping this name off the page", you're wrong. Here is how the body of the article addresses the name:

The city's nadir is often considered to be its default on its loans on December 15, 1978, when under Mayor Dennis Kucinich it became the first major American city to enter default since the Great Depression.[17] National media began referring to Cleveland as "the mistake on the lake" around this time, in reference to the city's financial difficulties, a notorious 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga River (where industrial waste on the river's surface caught on fire), and its struggling professional sports teams.[29] The city has worked to shed this nickname ever since, though in recent times the national media have been much kinder to the city, using it as an exemplar for public-private partnerships, downtown revitalization, and urban renaissance.[30]

The issue is not "keeping this name off the page" but where on the page to include it. I personally would be fine for moving this entire paragraph, or a shorter version of it, to the lede (providing consensus is reached) -- what I and others object to is sticking it there with no context.

Of course, the paragraph doesn't say that MBTL is the most common current nickname for Cleveland (nor do any of the largely sports articles captured by the Nexis-Lexis search), but that's because no reliable source has been produced that says this. You just added a source to the main article saying that whether Cleveland is the county seat needed to be verified. I wish you would apply the seemingly very strict standards used here on Calamity's claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend, discussion of the issue has gone all over the place, so I'll summarize my view here. I am not against the inclusion of the term in the article, but because of it's insulting nature I believe it should have some context to it. This context is provided where the phrase is discussed within the body of the article. If it has to be in the nickname list it should have something like "(derogatory)" placed after it. This would be in line with the common dictionary practice of marking insulting ethnic demonyms like Polack as offensive or derogatory.

Regarding the sensitivity issue, a city can suffer from a bad image as much as a living person. Elevating a crutch insult to nickname status on Wikipedia without providing context will unfairly besmirch the city and will give the insult undeserved credibility. It is the same reason Polack is not listed in the demonyms for people from Poland. One could argue that it should be there, because people use the term. (And yes, I know it isn't so common anymore, but pretend it was 50 years ago, or replace it in your mind with more insulting epithets for other groups that I won't repeat here). The reason Polack is not included is because it is an insulting term and listing it in the demonyms would promote would promote an unfair negative view of Poles. If Mistake on the Lake is listed as just one more nickname, it would be putting the POV of the insulters into the article and promote the negative view in the same way. --Beirne (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The details of the Lexis Nexis Search

Let me summarize here my article by article analysis that I made earlier. According to Lexis Nexis itself at [6] it provides results from “more than 3,400 newspapers”. User Calamity did a search from these 3400 + newspapers that he describes as “LexisNexus search "Mistake by the Lake" Cleveland limited to the past two years”. Here are the facts about that search:

1. It returned 18 hits.
2. Eliminating duplicates there were only 15 hits.
3. Of these 15, I could only find 11 online and Calamity did not respond to a request to provide the context of the other 4 (although all were sports related).
4. Of these 11, ONLY ONE came from anything other than a sports page. In this one article from the NY Times it speaks of Mistake by the Lake as a term used in the past that has been overcome. So if we stopped our analysis right here and accepted theanalysis of the L-N search as a reliable source, then we could say, “In a survey of over 3400 newspapers published in the last two years, the term Mistake by the Lake was used only once by anyone other than a sportswriter.” But let’s go further.
5. Of the 10 sports references, two don’t refer to the city but refer only to the old stadium.
6. Of the remaining 8, 3 do not capitalize it so they are obviously not using it as a nickname, 2 others use it only in the past tense, and 1 is clearly intended as comical.

I see nothing in the above that suggests MBTL is considered a current, widely accepted nickname for Cleveland. In fact, I think any reasonable person would have to conclude the exact opposite. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on the evidence

If one accepts that a brief, representative list of nicknames should be composed based upon frequency of current worldwide use (rather than an editor's determination of image value to Cleveland), then this must be a relative question.

"C-Town," "The Cleve" and "Sixth City" return zero results in a two-year search of Lexis Nexis.

"Forest City" returns 148 results. (Fully 69 of these are from a local Cleveland weekly business publication, and 13 others from regional publications.)

About nine of 18 returns for "Mistake on the Lake are from roughly million-plus circulation newspapers, compared with about nine such for "Forest City."

To determine frequent use, one must have some measure of frequency.

The evidence presented is an extremely simple form of a widely accepted method used in corpus linguistics and discourse analysis that often relies on Lexis Nexis.

One may retort that analysis isn't permitted of Wikipedia editors, and that this is "synthesis."

Perhaps, but I'd contend that editors are allowed extremely limited and simple, unsourced analysis, such as "X number is greater than Y number," etc., or "Cleveland is larger than Toledo" or "The elephant in the room is large."

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "C-Town," "The Cleve" are pretty obscure and "Sixth City" is long obsolete, so they don't really fit on the list either. That gets us down to Forest City, which would probably also be obsolete if it weren't used in a variety of business names. It is the nearest thing that Cleveland has to a regular nickname, though, so it should stay. The rest of my comments from this morning still apply for the MotL issue. --Beirne (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamity says: If one accepts that a brief, representative list of nicknames should be composed based upon frequency of current worldwide use (rather than an editor's determination of image value to Cleveland), then this must be a relative question.

Response: This is acceptable only if the survey of the frequency has been reported in a reliable source. You refuse to submit your RAW SEARCH DATA to any analysis at all -- instead of a count of usage by reliable sources of MBTL as a nickname, the raw data only reports if the words appear in any context. The fact that you still insist on counting 18 hits when three of these hits are duplicates (as has been pointed out twice) and ignore other flaws in your argument demonstrated by actually reading the articles shows the danger of expecting any objectivty from your analysis.

And you continue with your strawman argument and refuse to address that the issue is not whether, but where, to include the info and in what context. You want to include it where it will create a FALSE impression on a reader. Just like with your reliance on a raw unanalyzed serach engine result, you want to either distort or ignore context. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on sportwriting

Not to get too far afield, but sportwriters have greater freedom to use informal, colloquial language than news and opinon writers.

In a search for colloquialisms, therefore, it makes little sense to exclude sportswriting. Utter aside: the field is sometimes deemed to have higher literary value than news writing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And where might I find in wikipedia policy or guidelines that serious articles should be based on "informal, colloquial language" rather than reliable sources that actually know something about the subject? How do you equate a sports colloquialism into a nickname applicable across the entire spectrum relevant to this article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to discuss the lede; specifically its list of colloquial nicknames.

Writers and editors at truly major newspapers are, in general, serious and well-informed, offering reliable examples of standard, contemporary English. That's why scholars who use statistics to study language often use the LexisNexis database.

If you want to call the 18 returns 10 returns (or whatever), that's okay. On that basis, I don't know how many returns for "Forest City" one would count, but might suppose the number would shrink by a similar percentage.

Perhaps one could throw out all but the truly large publications, in which case it's nine returns for each.

Zero remains zero, for the other three names, I suppose.

As evidence that "Mistake" is not a well-known current term, has anything has been posted other than opinion?

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that more needs to be considered than the frequency. From my point of view it isn't whether the term is well known, but that it should be put in context or marked as derogatory. I haven't seen a good answer to that. It is correct that it is a derogatory term, so marking it as such or using it in a detailed fits in with the NPOV requirements. --Beirne (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your change. I still believe that the term should either be limited to the body of the article or, as I suggested somewhere above, put in the same context in the lede as it is in the body of the article. It is linked to specific events in a specific time period and has nothing to do with the way reliable sources refer to Cleveland today. Its derogatory use today, other than in an historical context, is not done by reliable sources. There is no reason at all to change the status quo until there is a consensus to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I edited the lede based on my suggestion that t be placed in context. Language is almost directly from the body of the article. I did not include the footnotes (which can still be added) since the material is sourced in the body. Delete and discuss if you (or anybody else) disagrees. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read about a real life experience in growing up and working in and from the Cleveland Ohio region totally more than 85 years see the story of Ray Tapajna behind the story of his advocacy for human dignity in the work day and fair trade since 1992 and online since 1998, at http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews - see http://tapsearch.com/about-ray-tapajna He spent most of his work career in the computer industry in and from Cleveland Ohio totally more than 40 years. He called on the top international corporations who once had their corporate offices in Cleveland. In his history, you will be able to find out about many different business cultures that once thrived in Cleveland. He worked in several factories while going to college after growing up in family food store. He also was with the largest advertising art studio in Cleveland and called upon some of the top advertising agencies that had offices in Cleveland. He was with Air France, the international airline when there was a large airline community employing hundreds in the downtown area alone. He started some of the first air cargo routes too from Hopkins Airport after serving as an Army Officer in the Transportation Corp.

He serviced the last large family supermarkets throughout the Cleveland area. He was part of a computer manufacturer who located a plant in the inner city and during this time experienced the Hough riots riding in a convertible trying to stop the riots with other company excutives.

He witnessed the burning of several family super markets he once served in his own business. He was then part of some of the first national communications network installations by HIS ( Honeywell/GE Computer) and sold the largest computerized data entry system up to that time with another company located on the Public Square.

He helped jump start the cat scan industry with his knowlege about disk storage error recovery and traveled to the Silicon Valley for several years . He wrote on errory recovery codes and helped save military accounts time and money.

From Cleveland, he provided some of the first diagnostic and calabration devices directly to China. He also was in the process of supplying Chinese accounts with vintage Control Data Computers. He had more than 25 years in his own business and ended as a trouble shooter supplyer for industrial computer and other accounts who were having problems adapting to parts made abroad since so many products were continously changed without any code references or product number changes. He fought for the last micro computer made in the USA to the end and had many computers built to his specifications under his company's label for years. He also played a part in serving the high tech startups associated with Case Western Reserve. He also was part of the start up of Digital Radar Weather Software which was located at the downtown airport. For more see, http://tapsearch.com/about-ray-tapajna and http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews/id18html This will give readers an insight of how great Cleveland was at one time from the perspective of someone who lived and worked during the times. He was part of about 25 companies big and small located in the area with three having offices in downtown Cleveland. None of these companies survived including some with a 100 year history. See his overview of the World is Flat at http://tapsearch.com/flatworld and his Tapsearch.Com now has more than 180,000 references of Google and Yahoo. Cleveland was never the "Mistake on the Lake" - it represents an economic model that once was vibrant and still should be an example of how only local value added economies work in balance geopolitical settings that add value from the raw product level up through several levels to the final end user or retail stage. With this process, the economy was recyled in many ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapsearcher (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert by Tom

Bierne: You've made an improvement to the lede that I support and that was reverted by Tom, who suggests there is no consensus.

So we disagree with Tom, who is now acting unilaterally, and has presented no evidence to support the view that "Mistake" isn't a widely known and currently used name for Cleveland.

Perhaps the reverted change should be re-introduced as it would seem to be moving toward compromise.

However, apart from danger of treating the poor readers as morons, unable to make obvious inferences, B.'s suggestion argues for non-neutral editing treatment -- which is undesirable.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You've still got it backwards -- its the person who wants to ADD material that assumes the burden of attributing it to a reliable source. There is a reliable source that says Forest City is Cleveland's nickname. All you need to do is find a reliable source that says "MBTL is Cleveland's nickname". It seems easier to find a single reliable source (if in fact the claim is true) than to rely on your own very questionable statistical analysis. Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples which is clearly on point:

Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.

For you, this now seems to be more about winning than improving the article. On one hand, you say add back B's edit but then charge that it reflects "non-neutral editing treatment -- which is undesirable." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My addition of "(derogatory)" is merely describing the term to differentiate it from the nicknames that are not derogatory. It is a fact that the term is derogatory, and putting that word there makes it clear that it does not have the same standing as the other nicknames. As I have said earlier many times, this is normal dictionary practice and makes sense here. I am also puzzled that cb supports my change even though he says it is non-neutral. And cb, I wouldn't complain too much about acting unilaterally. The only reason I didn't revert your change this time is that I'm getting tired of this and thought I'd try a compromise. To make a point again that you ignore, the prevalence of MotL isn't the issue, it is its insulting nature. --Beirne (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on special labels & tastefulness

Beirne:

Apologies for ignoring your more direct focus on the term's image value (derogatory, humorous) to Cleveland.

A reliable gauge of acceptable tastefulness --as you might guess-- is usage in reputable major publications.

The reader instantly "gets" meaning of "Mistake."

Putting special labels on the obvious serves no purpose other than to question the reader's intelligence.

Each item on the list DOES have the "same standing" per neutral editing practices. If the "(derogatory, humorous)" tag is needed, then similar labels on nicknames that are positive and neutral would be necessary.

Your point about dictionaries doesn't apply to encyclopedias.

Regarding "my changes," I recently put an edit note in the article's history, but made no changes to text.

Tom seems focused on his opinion that "Mistake" is not a nickname in current use.

This opinion, however, is a mistake, according to various examples in major pubs -- none of which Tom accepts as a "serious" use.

Examples may show that "Mistake is a fundamentally non-serious and humorous nickname as typically and currently used. Such original analysis isn't particularly relevant to more narrow question of currency.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The usage in major publications is not a gauge of tastefulness, especially in the context of sports. Name calling is common there and doesn't really count. And in any case, the point is still to be insulting. The point of the derogatory is to indicate that the recipient does not appreciate it, and it does not harm or violate NPOV to have it there. The dictionary comparison does apply, as they are both reference works. People know that terms like Polack are insulting, but the dictionary authors don't want morons thinking that the term is accepted just because it is in the dictionary. --Beirne (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on taste

High circulation newspapers, with their legions of highly trained and well-paid editors, aren't in business to make readers angry or revolted -- nor to question their intelligence. Never use terms like "Polack.

Hence the term "Family Newspaper."

Major pubs are a simple and valid gauge of what vigilant professional gatekeepers deem as widely accepted language.

That's why they're often cited by dictionaries.

By the same token, Wikipedia editors, lacking evidence, can ONLY have a personal point of view on this question.

Wikipedia editors can probably say, without a citation, that "Chicken Cross the Road?" is a joke. But their purely personal, unsourced views of comedy are inappropriate. (please see The Aristocrats (joke) ). Tasteless & NOT found in major pubs.

Nicknames are neither jokes nor comedy, but often incorporate the closely related category of humour.

You may not personally, find a particular joke (or example of humour) to your taste, nor discussed in a serious context. (Yet there may be endless recent examples of the joke being told.)

This doesn't objectively mean it's not a joke, or that it doesn't exist, or even, that it is significantly offensive to most people.

Similarly, a nickname that you may personally find problematic, may rightly belong on a purely representive list, if it is among the best-known examples of such names.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because MotL is in the press does not mean that it is not insulting. --Beirne (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why an encyclopedia is not a dictionary

Difficult to briefly sum up; but an ultimately simple point.

Each entry in a dictionary may have various labels of usage, including part of speech, origin, etc.

An encyclopedia entry typically doesn't include these labels, and may include hundreds of additional terms used to discuss whatever given entry.

Within this encyclopedia discussion, certainly none of these ancillary terms include the multiple lables of usage found in dictionary entry for a particular word.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One other difference, an encyclopedia normally does not deal with insulting terms, nor does it try to pass them off as normal names for the subject being discussed. --Beirne (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias, specifically Wikipedia, deal with a wide range of terms and topics, including, of course, Mistake on the Lake.

Several hundred professional editors and writers at general circulation pubs have found the term acceptable in varied contexts over a period of years.

Why an anonymous "editor" at Wikipedia would assert a special and contrary insight is unclear.

However, I accept your proposed compromise to include the term on the lede list with what might be called a usage label.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are actually four choices out there:

1. Don't list it at all.
2. List it with no qualification.
3. List it with the term "derogatory"
4. The current text -- term mentioned with an accurate explanation from where it came from

Nobody has offered any explanation as to why #4 is not the best solution. Seems to me that an explanation is always preferrable to simply listing. In fact several other editors have objected to the term being presented out of context. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The current text reflects your previously stated belief that "Mistake" is historical and no longer in use.

Evidence suggests it may be recently appearing at the same or greater rate than previously. (Nine or more citations in past two years, vs about 200 or fewer, for full, 40-year period.)

Regardless, there is no evidence posted that it's non-current.

(Whether Cleveland has improved by some measures since 1969 isn't relevant to the narrow question at hand.)

The current text presents a list of nicknames, which the reader is invited to assume is composed of neutrally selected names that are best known or otherwise most significant.

All posted evidence suggests "Mistake" would belong on such a list; Therefore options two and three you present above are the more logical and reasonable (despite the non-standard treatment included for number three).

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My Personal Point of View, and a Partial Suggestion

I actually have little problem with current lede text on "Mistake." Except for a problem with it not being on list of nicknames.

It's shown by a reasonable standard to be current.

Although enduring nicknames often outlive their original meaning (please see, for example Yankee), it's certainly the only Cleveland nickname with national and probably international historical significance.

As the current text more or less indicates, the term was important in the intial emergence of what might be called in retrospect, a national environmental consciousness. I myself recall first reading it in Time Magazine in about 1969 in a larger article about the "environment," a category that until then, was somewhat obscure. "Mistake" arguably had role in creation of Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon.

Today as we know, the much larger, underlying issue highlighted at the time by emergence of the term, has become a center of debate concerning national and international policy that is potentially of incalculable world importance.

Compare with significance of "The Cleve" or whatever.

The preference of two editors, as I understand it, is that the list be presented purely as a few artifacts of local pride. Perhaps the larger aim is unobjectionable, but I'm a bit cynical concerning boosterism.

Regardless, this approach certainly won't produce an objective list of nicknames.

One could change the current list thus: "In addition to Mistake, other nicknames include blabla."

Or-- one could simply delete the list. "Sixth City" and "The Cleve" don't really illuminate much about Cleveland.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've said earlier that I think the nickname list in the lede is pretty useless. I wouldn't have a problem with eliminating it altogether. The Sixth City is obscure and obsolete and The Cleve doesn't get much use. Nickname lists tend to accumulate a lot of names that someone just heard somewhere. --Beirne (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A list certainly isn't necessary. The sentence in question could be replaced with, "The Forest City is Cleveland's oldest surviving nickname, dating back to the 1850s" with sourcing to the encyclopedia article referenced above. It seems only balanced that if you have a former, deragatory nickname included in the lede that you actually also refer to Forest City. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say, Forest City is kind of interesting and should have a mention.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that history of these names NOT be included in lede. Nor should they be conflated.

BTW you really haven't discussed this question in a reasonable manner.

You continue with assertion that "Mistake" is a former nickname yet post no evidence to support this obviously incorrect opinion.

You mainly ignore much evidence to the contrary, while making a few spotty and sometimes rather irrational arguments that various small bits of this material is somehow invalid.

Too often, Wikipedia is hijacked by this type of editing.

It's like discussing Obama's birth certificate with a Republican.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your record of being blocked and your near 3RR violations here suggest that you are probably not the best person to lecture others on how to edit wikipedia. Every issue you have raised has been addressed above. Your need to go over the same claims repeatedly seems to be based on a belief that consensus is won by wearing everybody else out -- you might want to look up WP:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sun Orbits Earth; World Orbits Cleveland

Thanks for providing at least some evidence that is relevant to your viewpoint -- if only that about me personally.

Unfortunately, you haven't used a similar approach in discussing content.

If only some documentation -- even a shred-- were available to directly support your assertions, this could potentially advance the discussion.

I've pointed the way to literally hundreds of citations in major publications in support of my point. You've provided virtually nothing.

But instead, you raise purely marginal and illogical quibbles with bits of the substantial available evidence that contradicts your personal opinion. (The question is whether the nickname is current and your argument is that.... major sportwriters don't use nicknames??? Don't use the English Language? Don't each have multiple, highly trained editors?)

Whatever your arguement may actually be, you ignore much additional evidence, labeling all of this, conclusively, as "addressing the issue."

It's easily demonstrated that "Mistake on the Lake" continues to resonate nationally and internationally, while "The Cleve" and "Sixth City" etc., remain virtually unknown and unused, except by a few locals with a parochial and unbalanced viewpoint.

Which you share, and seek to impose on this article, merely on the basis of your point of view.

But OK, I give up; the sun circles the earth.....because YOU SAY it does, and it's therefore a settled matter of pure and elegant reason. Based on a consensus of one person.

And Cleveland is "an Emerging World City," as the article says -- definitely impressive, and which I suppose makes its citizens deserving of congratulations and more significant than those of Toledo and Youngstown. (But wait...are they also "Emerging World Cities?" )

BTW, obviously, I haven't edited this article in quite some time, and don't particularly intend to.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Serious edit or vandalism?

I reverted the following (along with a repetitious reference to the population decline) from Calamity:

Despite these obvious difficulties, Cleveland boosters with a view toward local pride and real estate values seek to promote various obscure so-called nicknames that reflect well on the locality. These include "Sixth City," "The Cleve," "Forest City" and various others with upbeat connotations related to city pride and property values.

Did he really intend this as a serious addition to the article? I think not. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see above discussion.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

I have now reverted the following original research claim by Calamity:

Among national and international newspapers, the most widely published nickname for the city in the two years before September 2009 is "Mistake on the Lake" according to a Lexis-Nexis search.

This has been discussed at length above. Of course, two can play the OR game and in fact what an analysis of the RAW DATA shows would support the following claim just as easily:

Among national and international newspapers in the last two years, "Mistake on the Lake" according to a Lexis-Nexis search is only used once other than in a sports context.

See Talk:Cleveland, Ohio#The details of the Lexis Nexis Search and Talk:Cleveland, Ohio#response above.

Of course in fact NOTHING from the Nexus-Lexis search meets reliable source criteria. And NOTHING from any individual article supports Calamity's POV claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For examples in which a name is published, then any million-plus circulation newspaper is certainly a reliable source. This is simply basic.

And why again this notion out of left field, that sportswriting is illegitimate?

It's taught at many universities.

A search of one large library turned up 13,000 volumes.

It is keenly followed by millions of readers.

If you'd seek to limit examples to a particular category or categories, like home improvement, politics, arts, world affairs, etc., some particular rationale should be offered.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't have a problem with something like "Nicknames for Cleveland include the Forest City and the Mistake on the Lake (derogatory)". Unfortunately Calamity's latest edit was more to try to make a point than to write content that would last. --Beirne (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version DOES refer to MOTL in context. There would be little point in retaining that language (i.e. "The city has worked to shed this nickname ever since") and then simply reiterate in the next paragraph that it is a derogatory nickname. I'm not sure why since Calamity admits that his last edits were frivolous that you are still acting as if he is a reasonable editor who has a valid POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Beirne: :At least you have a clearly stated view that I can accept (as compromise). Unclear that Tom, however, would view this as a "consensus."

You're right about my recent edits, though am not certain that I "made" my point.

Odd that Tom just does hit-and-run discussion in which he makes (unsupported) claims that an array of major newspapers aren't "reliable sources." He may believe that major sportswriters don't present reliable examples of language, but this also is peculiar and unsupported view.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MOVing On

(latter bits of discussion moved from above)

Tom: Beirne and I agree on a compromise; you don't.

Am sorry that your response consists of wild personal attacks.

You raise yet another subject that simply isn't relevant to my rather narrow, simple and repeatedly stated point.

I remain interested in your assertion that major newspapers aren't reliable sources and that sportwriters don't present valid examples of language.

Perhaps you might usefully expand on this thought with some reasonable evidence.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

North, I didn't realize that the longer explanation is still in the lede. I think that is more detail than the term deserves in the lede, and would favor moving the explanation back to the body of the article and if Calamity still wants add MotL into the nickname list, mark it as derogatory, and remove the other nicknames except for Forest City. I've been saying for a long time that I don't have a problem with it being in there if marked as such. I'd prefer it not be in the list at all but can live with the compromise. --Beirne (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I merely point out, for the upteenth time, that "nickname" is a neutral category of language and that given at least nine million examples in which "Mistake" has been imprinted on paper in the past two years, it does seem to be in wide use and should therefore of course appear on a list of current names.

I'd really like to keep discussion focused on this matter.

Can we hear evidence or reasoned argument (if any) narrowly for or against this point, rather than mere assertions like "Mistake" is not a nickname for Cleveland, or "major newspapers aren't reliable sources" or "you're not a serious editor?"

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamity, I was replying to North, and I'll talk about what I want to talk about, in this case the compromise that I though we had. Now I'm not so sure. --Beirne (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

B: I do indeed hope and expect you will talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Keeping discussion on track and narrowly focused would be my preferred goal. Certainly there are other valid approaches to edit discussions that may use different technique.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IS 'Mistake' a Nickname for Cleveland?

Answer'd be yeah, I reckon.

What is contrary evidence?

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Cleveland, Ohio → Cleveland — Aside from this article and St. Louis, Missouri, major US cities are no longer titled with the city, state format. As can be seen above, this article was exempted from a general consensus for reasons that are unclear to me, since I cannot find any evidence of a discussion about Cleveland on the pages referenced above, and the alleged decision was passed back to this talk page, and never acted upon. Even if the decision had been to keep Cleveland at "Cleveland, Ohio", I would still call for it to be moved, since Cleveland has redirected here and not to another place or a disambig page by consensus (see the revision history of Cleveland. Abductive (reasoning) 10:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The primary topic should be at the non-disambiguated title, and the most common name for this city is clearly "Cleveland". This is already done with other comparable cities like Atlanta, Miami and Minneapolis. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The naming format is "city, state" and it should stay that way. Hell, the other articles should be moved back for the same reason. TJ Spyke 15:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This city is the primary topic for "Cleveland", and Cleveland is listed in the AP stylebook as not requiring the state qualifier. So this article should be moved just like all of the other major U.S. cities moved in October. Cheers, Rai•me 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Canonical form is [City, State], but Cleveland, being in the AP Stylebook is a permissible exception. There's no dispute on primaryusage since "Cleveland" already redirects here. No other cities have the recognition and the President has a first name that dictates his article be on different name real estate.--Louiedog (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Newspaper editing lingo for this is "stand-alone city."

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this is a clear primary topic. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

Support. No compelling reason the state should be in the title; no reason for a Wikipedia reader to have to type out the state. Ease of use and common sense dictates Cleveland only; no state. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. Here's the hard-to-find discussion that originally moved most of the other articles about large U.S. cities from the "City, State" format to simply "City". (The page WP:Naming conventions (settlements) was merged with WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), and the discussion is buried within the old page's talk archives). This followed years of contentious debate, with positions ranging from use of "City, State" with no exceptions whatsoever to "City" being used only in clear cases of ambiguity. In a series of discussions, a compromise was reached whereby cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not needing the state name in every reference could be moved to the "City" title if consensus arises about that particular article. The discussion linked above involved a large number of cities, Cleveland among them. The closing admin requested further discussion before a move of this and the St. Louis, Missouri article, and we're discussing the Cleveland article now. Yes, people use the word "Cleveland" when discussing the two-term U.S. President, but the context is clear. szyslak (t) 03:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is some consensus elsewhere about this then who are we to discuss?

AP stylebook is very good and highly standard and influential.

Encyclopedias in general, to my knowledge, use other stylebooks. Which ones I can't say.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Opppose — This proposal presumes that the article about a certain city is the primary topic, ignoring the closely related article about the surrounding metropolitan area and the dozens of other places named Cleveland. Show me that this city is the primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• My reasoning is that the redirect, after much contention, leads here. If the redirect had settled on being a disambig or redirected to Greater Cleveland or to the Cleveland in England, I probably would not have made this move request. I also note that the city of Cleveland is 54.2% African-American, so in the minds of some suburbanites it isn't the real Cleveland anymore. Abductive (reasoning) 05:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support: it's in the AP stylebook, after all, and this is the clear primary topic. I'd also support a similar move from St. Louis, Missouri to St. Louis on the same presumption. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've opened a move discussion for St. Louis as well. I think many of the same arguments apply there. Jafeluv (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  Newspaper stylebooks are irrelevant, since Wikipedia is not a local newspaper but a world encyclopedia. Every local newspaper in a place named Cleveland can refer to that Cleveland without a qualifier. On Wikipedia, all place names that have more than two uses need disambiguation. So, the question remains: is this Cleveland the primary topic? --Una Smith (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  Considering that Cleveland has pointed to this article for two years now, I don't think it's really disputed that this is the primary topic. By the way, what did you mean by "On Wikipedia, all place names that have more than two uses need disambiguation"? I first read that as a statement that every ambiguous place name should have a disambiguator instead of one of them being located in the plain title, but on second thought I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify? Jafeluv (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, no. Now that it is being debated, it is up to those supporting the proposal to move, to show that article X is the primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus has determined that the U.S. cities listed in the AP stylebook as not needing state qualifiers in newspaper articles, and only those cities, may be located at [[City]]. Since this particular newspaper stylebook is the basis for the naming convention, I don't see how it could be irrelevant. Rai•me 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I respect Wikipedia naming conventions. However, I also respect other Wikipedia guidelines and when guidelines conflict I think the more global one should dominate. Thus, WP:NC:CITY is a secondary guideline. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply because this is one common name used ambiguously for more than one topic, not a choice among alternative names for just one topic. That leaves us with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So, rather than assert it, please show me that this article is the primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Another clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; also per WP:NC:CITY, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC. The most relevant piece of evidence for this topic being primary is that the redirect of Cleveland to this article has been stable for a year and a half, and only moved temporarily during very short disputes a few times in the last five years. People do say and write Cleveland, Ohio, of course, but just Cleveland is more common.

  "Whenever possible, article titles reflect the name most commonly used, and most likely to be recognized, to refer to the topic of the article." (WP:NC) --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as primary topic. The unqualifed name was previously a dismabiguation page and there was overwhelming support for redirecting it to the Ohio city several years ago at Talk:Cleveland (disambiguation). Since Cleveland is on the AP list of stand-alone city names, having the article be at the unqualified name is consistent with current naming guidelines. --Polaron | Talk 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not discussing usage in running text; we are discussing a page title, which is likely to show up in a list of search results with no context whatever, save that it is a topic of a Wikipedia article. Not primary usage over Grover; nor Barbara Palmer for that matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Easily the primary topic, and 'Cleveland' already directs here. AlexiusHoratius 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States? Cleveland. Clearly that word is used in many ways and there is no primary use. There may be one use that is more common, but that is far from being the primary use. So let's follow the Principle of least astonishment and from the naming convention Article titles that do not simply reflect the name of the topic are more descriptive, but only as precise as necessary to identify the name or subject of the topic unambiguously. and Similar articles are generally given similar titles. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  Google trends says you're waaaay off. Nobody cares about Grover Cleveland. Abductive (reasoning) 06:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Until someone can cite a WP naming policy, no City, State article should be renamed or moved. Otherwise we open a can of thousands of moves and bickering discussions in multiple areas. If there is such a policy and it has been properly vetted through discussion and consensus, then these kinds of changes should be done by a bot. And remember, the "just because someone did this for a few other articles does not make it policy" argument applies. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States, which is essentially a compromise between those arguing for universally using "city, state" and those arguing for always using the plain city name except where the name is ambiguous and not primary topic. The guideline calls for "city, state" naming for any city in the United States except for those listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier. This is one of the exceptions listed in the stylebook, and as you can see by looking at the guideline most of the other exceptions are already in the plain city name format. Nobody is proposing changing thousands of articles – the present discussion is about Cleveland only, and there's a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:St. Louis, Missouri. Jafeluv (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the naming convention. Apologies for thinking the sky is falling, which is a common side effect during any WP discussion. However, even though the AP manual uses the City only name, it is silly for WP to follow this. Because since there are thousands of other articles using City, State, they all should use the same format. Not "all of them except these couple few ones." Though I'd admit that discussion belongs elsewhere. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect few of us who settled on the compromise would disagree with your contention that following the AP manual in WP is silly. However, that is often the nature of any compromise solution - it looks silly for both perspectives. You're right that this is not the place to discuss, but if your vote is essentially based on disagreeing with a broadly supported consensus decision, I suggest the closing admin weigh it accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The conclusion of a very long, protracted discussion was to use only City as the article title for those cities on the AP list except where there is other ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and Cleveland, Ohio was and is one of those exceptions. --Una Smith (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• And please explain Los Angeles which was moved solely because it was a city involved. The fact that it is ambiguous did not matter. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cleveland was not identified as an exception to the AP list and the fact that it is a redirect to the city indicates status as primary topic. What is there to explain about Los Angeles? It was moved based on consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. If you're saying there was no consensus for that move, this is not the appropriate forum and is of little relevance to the current discussion. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• The move proposed was for the AP list of cities that were obviously primary use, i.e. the ones no one would have any qualms about moving. There was no discussion about the more borderline cases with the tacit assumption being that those cities should be worked out on a case-by-case basis, as we are doing now here. All previous discussions and guidelines say that we're free to argue Cleveland on its own merits.--Louiedog (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. On reading the evidence, it appears there is a tendency to defer to AP stylebook on this question. That's my personal tendency, but question hinges on Wikipedia consensus.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The U.S. city appears to be significantly more notable than anything else listed at Cleveland (disambiguation), and using the AP stylebook in this case makes sense. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This requested move was made with the claim that Aside from this article and St. Louis, Missouri, major US cities are no longer titled with the city, state format. Judging by the links on Template:US state capitals, that claim is false. --Una Smith (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to Thomas Jefferson, state capitals tend not to be major cities. If you run down the list, Phoenix, AZ is huge, but the name is in use by the mythological bird. Denver, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Boston, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City lack the state. Abductive (reasoning) 06:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle all use just the city name. It's a small minority of all US cities (every other one uses the "city, state" format), but the major cities do tend to use just the city name unless there's a good reason not to. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  There was very much discussion and debate on this for many years. Maybe about a year ago, the only exceptions were New York City, Chicago, and Pennsylvania. Then there was a heated debate and the consensus was to move all cities in the AP stylebook to [city] except those with possible primary usage conflicts - Cleveland, Phoenix, and St. Louis. We had no discussion on those and resolved that they would simply be determined on their own. [City, state] is a nice format for editors but too artificial for readers in the more conspicuous cases.--Louiedog (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  The "city, state" format is pretty much transparent to readers, since it concerns only the page name, and neither the incoming links nor the lead need use that format. --Una Smith (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  I was going down the list of state capitals. Also, I note that if a city has the word "city" (or the "-polis" suffix) in its name it also lacks its state. Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Answer has been carefully considered by various authoritative sources, and needn't be a purely arbitrary matter of opinion.

Associated Press stylebook has had stable list of "stand-alone cities" for a very long time indeed.

Am unfamiliar with U.S. encyclopedia style, but would be preferred here.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is everyone's fetish about posting Cleveland it's suburbs historical populations? Is it to make a bold statement about our decline in population? Is it REALLY important info? Go on ANY city's Wiki in Europe, big or small, or most any other US city and you won't see too much on population stats. I suppose it's relevant for Cleveland as a big city but for each freaking suburb in the county? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.183.195 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Source about education in Cleveland and Slovenians

Hi! I found:

• Gombach, Marlene. "From Slovenian to American: Immigrants in Cleveland's Public and Parochial Schools." - American Educational History Journal, v33 n1 p127-136 2006
• WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Inner-ring suburbs

I think we need to take another look at the "inner-ring" paragraph. Treating "inner ring suburbs" and "first suburbs" as equivalent is factually incorrect. The edit I made was focused on inner-ring suburbs, while the revert seems to be focused on first suburbs. I spent just about all of my life in Cleveland and have some small connection to the urban planning scene there, and my experience has been that "inner ring" is a fixed part of Cleveland nomenclature, while the phrase "first suburbs" would be meaningless to most people there.

I think it would be more instructive to focus on the first term, rather than the latter, which essentially requires little more than looking at a map. Thoughts? — Bdb484 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While an inner-ring or first suburb isn't the easiest thing to define, I've always considered the two terms to be interchangeable. I think it has less to do with boundaries, and is more closely related to when the communities saw the bulk of their development. So, for example, Bedford and Berea do not border Cleveland, but are older communities that face many of the same issues as those closer to the urban core. Valley View is about the same distance from Cleveland, but I think most people wouldn't consider it an inner-ring suburb. I believe that the listed communities were pretty much built out more than 50 years ago. - Eureka Lott 05:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside whether the terms are interchangeable, I think the bigger question is actually whether "first suburbs" is a meaningful term. I don't remember ever hearing anyone use it in all my time in Cleveland, while "inner ring" is something that I think most people would understand. Searching cleveland.com also yields more hits for "inner ring" than "first suburb" by about 100 to 1. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the term that has more currency? — Bdb484 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. The article is at inner suburbs, but I hear inner-ring or first-ring suburb used more frequently. - Eureka Lott 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To concur with what Bdb84 said, I too had never heard 'inner-ring' or 'first suburb' used in my first 22 years of life when I lived in Cleveland. I imagine now that with places (e.g. Chardon, Mentor -- and for God's sake I've even heard people from Streetsboro and Vermilion claim suburban-ship to Cleveland nowadays) becoming more included as part of the Cleveland area such arguments may occur -- but if anything, the proper term for municipalities in the Cleveland MSA that are situated outside of Cuyahoga county I believe would actually be exurb, and not really a suburb at all Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Due to the recent apparent rash of vandalism during the month of April, I have listed the article for temporary semi-protection. Admins and others should continue to look for further vandalism to this page and worn those who vandalize. Texas141 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate additions

I wanted to explain my reasoning for removing the recent additions to the Climate chart. Basically, in looking at the source, the period of data collection was from 1961-1990, so it is at least 20 years old. I'm sure it's fairly close to the averages now, but unless we have more recent data, there is no way to actually verify that. On top of that, the remaining data in the chart comes from NOAA and the Weather Channel, so it is recent, as in the current decade 2001-2010. Having data in the same chart that comes from two different time periods skews accuracy and gives an illusion of contemporary data. If some more recent data of sun hours can be found, by all means keep it; without it, though, I feel it's like citing info from an old census and then assuming it's "probably" still accuarate and meshing it with data from the current census. What it ends up creating is a bunch of speculation and out-dated information. The Climate section is to give readers a general idea about the current climate of a city, so the more recent numbers the better. Would be interested to hear other editors' thoughts on this. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The climate information needs to be updated to reflect the new normals that were released by NOAA earlier in the summer and went into effect on August 1st of 2011. This would include significant changes in temperature and snowfall. The comment about being the second snowiest major city in America is also inaccurate now. The new climate normals give Cleveland 68.1" of snow annually which would mean that no city or metro region with a population greater than Cleveland would receive more snow. This sentence should probably be deleted from the article. Also official climate information only comes from NOAA, too many articles site weather.com or other third parties which are not official sources of data. The raw data for new climate information can be found here, http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/normals/1981-2010/products/station/USW00014820.normals.txt, but because this is a protected article I cannot update this information. Swancreek (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the climate information as above. Normals reflect only official data sources, come from the NCDC 1981-2010 file, and removed the outdated yahoo news article from 2007. Swancreek (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Relentlessly positive

I don't see a whole lot of discussion of the fact that Cleveland has been plagued by disastrous problems in the past 2 decades, including a population declining by 30%, overwhelming poverty, extraordinarily high foreclosure rates more recently, great cultural institutions having huge financial problems because of disappearing audiences, and so on. I was expecting "demographic changes" to be a paragraph presenting these issues, but instead I just see a chart with no analysis or commentary from third party sources. Not that the article needs to dwell on such negative things, but little tidbits like "the poorest major city in the United States" are tossed in, almost hidden, among promotional language about the city's exciting tech initiatives and cheering mentions of this or that positive ranking on some study. The whole thing just seems so rosy and cheerful that it is quite unconvincing. 24.20.200.67 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, have you read the article? There are sections that discuss things like crime and decrease in population already. So what exactly do you want? You can't find enough negativity in the PD, or in Newsweek, Time or clicking on the local news? There's plenty of poor people and negative stuff here in Chicago too, as well as in NYC and LA... hell, there's likely more poor people in NYC and LA than there are people in Cleveland... and certainly more overall crimes reported, murders and drugs in all three. Why not go ask your same question in those article's talk pages, see why they don't have whole paragraphs dedicated to droning on about their problems? It's only 'rosy and cherful' if you see it that way. Wikipedia isn't about presenting an opinion. You're interpretation is focused on your desire to look for negativity, not on reading the article for what it is. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ryecatcher773. Another issue is that Wikipedia articles aren't here to provide analysis (which is opinion based on various facts) like we see so often in various media reports. Wikipedia articles present sourced facts and aren't supposed to go into analysis of data on their own. The facts are that while Cleveland has lots of documented problems past and present (which are certainly covered in the article) it also has a lot of positives and strengths in various aspects. A lot of the positives in Cleveland get overlooked by all the negative coverage, so much so that the average reader forgets they're even there or thinks they aren't that important. Mentioning them is hardly covering up the problems or looking through rose-colored glasses. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Percentages of ethnic groups

I have changed most of the percentages for ethnic groups based on the ones in the Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 report. The original source did not include percentages, and appears to give a total of nationalities reported rather than the number of people who reported nationalities. Since people can enter multiple nationalities, the percentage calculated from that does not make sense. In the DP-2 the Census Bureau included percentages, based on dividing by the total population of the city. This brought down all of the percentages by .1% except for the English, which stayed the same. --Beirne (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Is there anyway to achieve accuracy regarding the sister cities? The Cleveland city hall has a webpage listing Heidenheim as a sister city, but Cleveland is not listed on Heidenheim's website for sister cities. The main Cleveland article cites a story in the Plain Dealer, noting that Beit Shean is Cleveland's sister city in Israel, but Cleveland city hall says its partner in Israel is Holon. Wikipedia claims that Holon's partner in the U.S. is Dayton, and there is even a photograph to prove it. I didn't even check the other purported sister cities for Cleveland in this article, but I suspect a lot of them are inaccurate or not up-to-date. Poldy Bloom (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sister Cities Web page [7] lists both Heidenheim and Holon for Cleveland, along with a bunch of others. This seems reasonably authoritative. --Beirne (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I am concerned that the Sister Cities website may be full of inaccuracies and information is that is no longer current. I checked a few of the purported sister-city relationships against what is written on the official websites of some of the non-American cities involved. Several provided different cities as their sisters, i.e. not the same ones listed for them on the Sister Cities website. I am going to see if I can find some more definitive information and will update accordingly. Poldy Bloom (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the US Cities project for Wikipedia considers the Sister Cities site to be a good reference on the topic. --Beirne (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always found the section to be a bit dubious -- it's not as though the 'sister city' thing means much to anyone outside urban-philes (like us) who frequent Wikipedia -- but kudos for the heads up. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio

This article barely mentions the Cleveland radio market while describing area print and TV outlets in relatively greater detail. A reasonable expansion of radio in Cleveland is consistent with media sections found in other featured articles, such as Ann Arbor, Boston and San Francisco. RumorControl3 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

City Nicknames in Infobox

Adding city nicknames to the article’s infobox is consistent with infoboxes found in other featured articles, such as those of Ann Arbor (4 nicknames), Boston (6 nicknames), Detroit (5 nicknames), Erie (3 nicknames), Minneapolis (3 nicknames), Providence (4 nicknames), San Francisco (5 nicknames), Seattle (7 nicknames) and Tulsa (3 nicknames). IsSheStillAlive3 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think many of the cities go overkill with including every nickname in the infobox. The city guidelines at WP:USCITY recommend using 1-3 nicknames in the infobox and then listing "notable" nicknames in the lead. Remember, having "FA" status doesn't mean the article is still in the same shape it was when it was first promoted (plus "FA" status seems to have higher standards than it used to), and just because something is in an article that is rated FA doesn't mean all FA articles must have the exact same thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jon. In all honesty, a lot of those names are not widely recognized (e.g. it hasn't been called the Sixth City since my grandfather was just back from WWII (when the city hit its peak population of just over one million people, and was the sixth largest city in the US). The Forest City is about the only one I'd reckon is historically viable as far as a keeper. We aren't talking about NYC or Chicago -- people generally know Cleveland as, well, Cleveland. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the list back to one entry again. - Eureka Lott 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise. Re-adding "The Rock 'n' Roll Capital of the World." 2 nicknames in the infobox would not conflict w/ the guidelines JonRidinger mentioned. In response to RyeCatcher, it's arguably more significant than any of the others "trimmed." Why? 1. Alan Freed and his Moondog Coronation Ball; 2. Stations like WIXY, and WMMS of the 70s and 80s; 3. If for no other reason, we have the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I understand why having every name in the infobox is too much. I understand why certain names probably don't belong there ("Metropolis" is rarely used, Cleveland of today is actually the "Forty-first city", etc.). But most people outside of Cleveland associate the city with the rock hall (aside from the cavs, browns, indians) -- and if you still don't know why Cleveland beat out other cities for the rock hall while being Cleveland, you owe it to yourself to learn about Cleveland's place in the history of rock. Len "Boom" Goldberg WMMS station ID: "Serving the Universe, from the Rock 'n' Roll Capital of the World..." Milespanic82 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Having grown up in Cleveland in the 80's, when WMMS was at its peak (see: Jeff & Flash, Kid Leo, et al.), and having voted in the phone-in voting to bring the Hall to Cleveland when I was in high school, I don't need to learn anymore about it. I actually lived in that era. The Alan Freed thing, while important, wasn't part of the argument until people started asking 'why Cleveland?' On the other hand, The 'North Coast' is the one nickname I remember from growing up there, but who knows if that ever had any 'brand recognition' outside Cleveland... and hence why I wouldn't bother lobbying for that nickname to be included either. I do know that I've lived in Chicago since 1994, and yes, while people do know about the HOF being there, the city is not recognized outside of Cleveland as being the 'Rock n' Roll Capital'. And the 'Home of the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame' as a nickname would be about as silly as to refer to Paris as 'Home of the Eiffel Tower'. The aim is to make/maintain this article as being a Feature Article, not a database of arbitrary information about the city of Cleveland. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard Oil, Rockefeller, and 1920

It took out a the mention of Standard Oil in 1920 because while the company was founded in the city, Rockefeller moved it to New York in 1885, so the sentence "By 1920, Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller had made his fortune and Cleveland had become the fifth largest city in the country" is technically true but misleading, as Rockefeller had been gone for 35 years by 1920 and the Standard Oil he founded just had the vestige of Sohio by then. Standard Oil should be mentioned in the article, but in the context of the 1800's. --Beirne (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From a language point it reads like Rockefeller making his fortune was why, or at least related to, Cleveland becoming the 5th largest city when it appears the two have no relation other than both being Cleveland-related; there is no cause-and-effect here. That needs to be made clear. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I ended up writing a sentence about the company being in the city from 1870-1885 and removed any mention from the 1920 sentence. --Beirne (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The busing section

There are two sections about the schools. The one under Demographics mainly talks about how busing wrecked the city. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia, and ends with Cleveland being the poorest major city in the country, something not clearly tied to busing. The topic is worth discussing, but could be written a more encyclopedic fashion. --Beirne (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

EurekaLott alluded to this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cleveland#Cleveland FA as part of the larger problem the article has in terms of content and my concern it really doesn't meet FA standards anymore. There is duplicate information and tons of lists. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there is already an entire article for the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, and given that the scope of the article is the entire city, not the problems of the school district, I've moved the entire section in question from the 'demographics' subheader here, to the Cleveland Schools article. What we can do, to make this a better article with regard to the 'education' sub-section is to expand a bit on the private schools info.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohio State

I've noticed some disagreement over an inclusion of Ohio State as a local college football team. First, Ryecatcher is correct: this article is about Cleveland so the mention of Cleveland State's possible football team should not be removed, especially since it's in the "future teams" sections. Ohio State is NOT a "future team" of Cleveland. Has OSU played in Cleveland? Of course. I was at the 2009 game at Browns Stadium. But that was the first time OSU played in Cleveland since 1991, so hardly a regular occurance; in fact, OSU games outside of Columbus in Ohio are pretty rare. If anything, Ohio State could be mentioned in one sentence where the Browns Stadium is mentioned as the "other sports" that Browns Stadium hosts (it has also hosted the men's and women's national soccer teams as well as other college football teams). Basically, almost any city in Ohio could claim to have a large Buckeye following, even Cincinnati. And Ryecatcher is also correct that Notre Dame has a large following in Cleveland as well as many of the Mid-American Conference schools. The MAC schools also have coverage on Cleveland.com. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the statements put in regarding Ohio State have approached original research, as there are no solid sources on what college football teams Clevelanders follow, but rather assumptions based on press coverage and perhaps personal knowledge. Plus, if this were typical content, most city articles would need to include a section on what sports teams their residents follow, and it generally isn't that concrete or even useful. --Beirne (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, press coverage should be a good indicator, because if people didn't care, they wouldn't bother covering it.

I'm not trying to start a ruckus, but I thought since it was noted that Cleveland didn't have it's own college football team, that it was worth pointing out the huge OSU following (let's face it, Cleveland pretty much considers the Buckeyes as their 4th pro team).

Vjmlhds 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The crux of the argument is not whether there is a large contingent of the Buckeye Nation in Cleveland, it's that the article is about the physical composition of the city, not abstraction such as the sporting interests of its residents. In the case of the Browns, Tribe and Cavs, it's not even important to mention the level of support, only that they play there. Whether or not the people support them is another matter entirely, and is certainly not the aim of this article. And to answer your point on the PD (i.e. Cleveland Live) just because there is media coverage doesn't justify the argument either -- WKNR is the Cleveland network affiliate broadcasting the Fighting Irish (Cleveland also has a sizable population -- particularly among its Catholic residents -- who root for Notre Dame). I'm not debating your point about the following OSU has in Cleveland in the least. To be honest, the Buckeyes are my favorite sports team, period -- even more than the Browns and Indians; but that doesn't mean that there is a compelling argument for inclusion of Ohio Satte as part of an article about the city of Cleveland. The Buckeyes play in Columbus, and thus they are physically part of the city. Cleveland has its own universities, and even though they aren't big programs, they are still headquartered in Cleveland. Ohio State is not. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rebeccagallant, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

PLEASE CHANGE: Cleveland's largest employer, the Cleveland Clinic,[124] ranks among America's best hospitals as tabulated by U.S. News & World Report.[125] Cleveland's healthcare industry includes University Hospitals of Cleveland, a noted competitor which ranked twenty-fifth in cancer care,[126] and MetroHealth medical center.

TO: Cleveland's largest employer, the Cleveland Clinic,[124] ranks among America's best hospitals as tabulated by U.S. News & World Report.[125] Cleveland's healthcare industry also includes University Hospitals of Cleveland, a noted competitor that ranked twenty-fifth in cancer care,[126] MetroHealth medical center and the Sisters of Charity Health System.

BECAUSE: The Sisters of Charity Health System is also headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.

MORE INFO FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES:

The Sisters of Charity Health System was established in 1982 as the parent corporation for the sponsored ministries of the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine in Ohio and South Carolina.

The Sisters of Charity Health System solely owns four Catholic hospitals: St. Vincent Charity Medical Center in Cleveland, Mercy Medical Center in Canton, Providence Hospital and Providence Northeast in Columbia, South Carolina. In a joint venture with University Hospitals of Cleveland, the Sisters of Charity Health System also sponsors St. John Medical Center in Westlake, Ohio. The organization also oversees three grant-making foundations located in Cleveland and Canton, Ohio, and Columbia, South Carolina. Each foundation sponsors significant community initiatives and collaborations that address causes and consequences of poverty. Other health and human services and education-related organizations within the Sisters of Charity Health System include Cleveland’s Joseph’s Home, a unique residential care center for homeless men; Canton’s Early Childhood Resource Center, for people working in childcare in all settings; and Healthy Learners, a South Carolina health care resource for children from low-income families. The Sisters of Charity Health System also provides residential eldercare services at Regina Health Center in Richfield, Ohio, and Light of Hearts Villa in Bedford, Ohio. Light of Hearts Villa is jointly sponsored by the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati. More information is available at www.sistersofcharityhealth.org.

Rebeccagallant (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I bet there are many health care services in Cleveland. We need to list only the most notable of them; without some evidence, I'm not comfortable adding more (and I'm tempted to remove the two that are there, leaving only the "number one" employer). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to type roughly the same thing... but when I hit 'save' there was an 'edit conflict', and my reply was lost. The hospitals that are listed there presently are not only the largest in Cleveland (which employ large numbers of Clevelanders), but in the post-heavy manufacturing era of the city, those three also comprise a sizable wedge of the employment pie in Cleveland's overall economic picture, which is why they are there in the first place, Qwyrxian. Meanwhile, I noticed that there isn't an article for Sisters of Charity Health System... why not create one? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Content ported in

—Bill Price (nyb) 16:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was not only unnecessary, but it goes beyond the intended scope of the article. The article is about Cleveland, the city. It's not about the regional economy and the interdependence of the cities in the region. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but it's out of place. It goes without saying that cities in any region share an economic relationship, as we live in agglomerated economy. What was imported into the Cleveland article should be part of a separate article altogether. An article called the Economy of the Rust Belt (or something indicative of the region, since not all those cities are on the Lakes or part of the Midwest or Northeast). Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Duluth, Buffalo, Toledo, Youngstown... the list is a lot longer than that. The so-called ChiPitts megalopolis is well-worn model of how cities along the great Lakes and industrial corridor share connctivity due to proximity to resources and related industries. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Should "Clevelanders" be italicized in the lead? If so, why? Levdr1 (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Banning pro sports?!

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video/suffering-cleveland-bans-all-professional-sports,19701/

Well, this appeared today. DryBones744 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just making sure you know what The Onion is :). --JonRidinger (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what is it? (if its fake, well, I sure look stupid -.-) DryBones744 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Better go tell my dad... that its fake (he pry already knew. And, yes, I look very friggin' stupid. Oh well. Mistakes happen). DryBones744 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a comedy site that makes up news stories for fun. They're totally playing on the sports misery we endure here in the Cleveland area. See The Onion. Don't feel stupid, feel more educated now :). --JonRidinger (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I see... DryBones744 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Redistricting

This is almost certainly incorrect and I don't know any serious political observer who thinks this will happen:

"The State of Ohio is expected to lose two Congressional seats as a result of the 2010 Census and based upon the steep decline in Cleveland's population political observers believe both of those districts will be eliminated in northeast Ohio.[11]"

It would be almost impossible to do this, given that Cleveland and its environs are not the only part of Ohio to lose population. Northeast Ohio will probably lose one district (I'm guessing 13), while the other will probably be in the southeastern sector of the state. Remember that Northeast Ohio also includes area like Geauga County and Medina County which have greatly increased population. This is someone's fringe-y personal speculation and should be removed.,,,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberorbit (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, while you may not believe it, you're either a latecomer to the game, or you haven't been reading the news since the 2010 census numbers came in. It's been all over the news since for a while now. For something that you're saying is almost impossible, I'd advise you to call the Wall Street Journal (the source of the citation) as well as the PoliSci professor at Akron U to dispute the info. As a matter of fact, the PD was reporting just the other day that Rep. Kucinich (D - Ohio 10th district) is looking at a possible move to the State of Washington if his district is dissolved. Just saying. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Climate

The article says that Cleveland is the second snowiest city in North America, but then cities a yahoo article that only claims it is the second snowiest city in America. There are plenty of Canadian cities that get more snow than Cleveland. Can a registered user please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.63.115 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames

I realize that people want to focus on the positive and all that, but seriously, what nickname do people immediately think of when they think of Cleveland? It's not in the article, but it rhymes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging terms are not bonafide nicknames. Unlike the 'Big Apple' or 'Windy City' what you're talking about isn't used in any context other than an insult -- and especially not by any chamber of commerce.

It's not about 'focusing on the positive' as you'd put it so much as it's about not putting something that is no more than the equivalent of mentioning an ethnic slur in a serious article on nationality or race. In any case, the nickname you refer to is dated, and actually was more accurately a reference to old Municipal Stadium. It is not a nickname that is used in a context other than an insult and serves no purpose in the article. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a nickname, just not a very nice one. And it is a very common one. If you want to put some positive spin on it then I'm sure you can find a source which talks about how lots of folks think that the nickname no longer applies (I lived in Cleveland when it did, and it was used by Clevlanders themselves) - the story basically being yes, it used to be the Mistake On the Lake but things got better since then. Which they have, the lake no longer catches on fire for one thing. Comparing the nickname to an ethnic slur is a bit of a Godwin's Law violation or at least hyperbolic. Write it in the "city has bounced back!" kind of way but include it because it is notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate what you're saying but it's been in the article before and removed by not only myself, but other editors as well. Here are a few points that I'll make about it:

• 1. Regardless of your assertion, it is a slur on the city of Cleveland, and to those of us who are from there, many do in fact take offense to it -- and even if you have heard locals use it, consider also that African Americans use the 'n-word' amongst themselves, but that doesn't mean they'll tolerate being called that by others. I grew up in Cleveland, and I've never heard any self-respecting Cleveland use that nickname. In fact, the only people I ever hear using that nickname are the Chicagoans I live amongst today.

• 2. 'Godwin's Law' is applicable if I'm putting it in a context involving Nazism, which I am not. Fascism is not a necessary component of disparaging a culture. Ethnic slurs existed long before Hitler, and are still used today by pretty much every society I can think of.

• 3. It was the Cuyahoga River that drew notoriety for catching on fire, not Lake Erie.

• 4. Writing it in a 'city that bounced back' context would constitute a POV issue, which incidentally is the same category that the 'Mistake by the Lake' nickname also falls into. It also falls into the 'weasel word' category. Both of which are Wikpedia no-no's.

• 5. There is plenty about the history of the decline of the city's economy, sports teams and population already mentioned in the article.

Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So...do we have reliable sources for either of these nicknames? It's not POV to report on the terms used by others. TO clarify, I don't mean a source that uses that nickname (that wouldn't be sufficient to prove it's widely held); rather, we need a source that actually discusses the nickname. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of sourcing -- it's a disparaging nickname that serves no purpose to illustrate any point of the article. Even in the context that Marek is suggesting, there is already sufficient info to convey the point that Cleveland (like many Rustbelt cities) has had its share of negative trends. I'll bullet-point them with the links in the article so you can see for yourself:

• Cleveland Social and Economic Decline
• Cleveland: Sports (second paragraph)
• Cleveland: Crime

Bottom line: The nickname is a term born of yellow journalism, and furthermore was actually a reference specific to the old Municipal Stadium, not the city itself. Its inclusion would contribute nothing to the article except to insult the city and the people who are natives of it -- which is exactly why it has been deleted from the article on numerous occasions in the past. Personally, I'm all in favor of eliminating the nicknames mentioned in the lead and keeping the only 'official' nickname that appears in the infobox (which is the the only one I've ever heard the city historically referred to as: the Forest City). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether it is disparaging or not has absolutely no merit on Wikipedia--we have whole articles on disparaging and demeaning terms. This isn't an article about a living person, so there are no WP:BLP issues to consider. If the nickname is widely used and has been discussed in detail in sources, it should probably be included. Note, for example, that the lead for Las Vegas, Nevada includes the disparaging, but widely known and discussed, nickname Sin City. So, again, I'm asking--is this nickname (I'll point out I don't even know what it is yet, since nobody has said it) the subject of discussion in reliable sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is exactly right. Wikipedia describes what reliable sources say about a subject. It is a fair question whether the term is in fact a general nickname or merely an epithet used in particular contexts. That is, it might (assuming it is used in reliable sources) be more appropriately mentioned in the history section rather than in the infobox or the lede. older ≠ wiser 01:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an epithet. It's not a nickname for the city. And your 'Sin City' reference is relative so far as negativity goes, given that not everyone interprets sin the same way... that's all I will say further about it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ryecatcher773, this is merely a slur. As a nickname, it has been misattributed to Cleveland, but historically referred to the late Cleveland Municipal Stadium. If we add the slur here, should we also add common slurs to pages about various ethnicities?THD3 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is a slur is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether it is commonly used in reliable sources. I grew up in the Cleveland area and have traveled around the country. When I mention that I'm from Cleveland, more times than not, mention is made of the burning river, Mayor Perk's burning hair, and "the mistake on the lake" -- oftentimes followed up with descriptions of how nice the city was when they visited recently to contraindicate the comedic stereotypes. older ≠ wiser 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd. I grew up in Cleveland and lived there until I was 22 (meaning until 1994) and I've never heard anyone, anywhere -- not even in Chicago, where I've been the past 17 years -- mention Mayor Perk. They don't even know enough to bring up Mr. Whackjob himself, Dennis Kucinich (who has been the butt of far more jokes and for a lot longer). Seeing as how you're from there, then you of course know its not an official nickname and the only sources you'll find for it (the erroneous use of it, by which I mean not in the context of the stadium) are moronic 'morning zoo' DJ's and that sort of ilk. No self-respecting newspaper or any other publication of merit uses that term. Seeing also that you're now a self-professed Michiganian, I suppose you'd like to step aside and allow for some free shots at Flint or Detroit as long as they can be sourced? I'm not the sort that would do that, but let's have some perspective here. (and yes, I realize that I said I didn't have anything further to say, but the mention of Ralph Perk kind of surprised me) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, Ryecatcher773, you're letting your personal feelings get in the way here. User Meluvseveryone listed Forbes magazine as a source that used "Mistake on the Lake", not less than two years ago. His was promptly removed and you had a hissy fit about it being disparaging. You're going ballistic about "No disparaging nicknames for Cleveland", yet you don't seem to mind that other cities have disparaging nicknames associated with them (Columbus being one of them). Why don't you stop being so hypocritical and work to have a policy that disallows "disparaging" nicknames across Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You again? Really? I'm not sure how I'm a hypocrite because of something that is in the Columbus article... which has exactly to do what with an edit I made. But, In case you didn't notice, this article has been amended to mention the Mistake on The Lake... and in case you also didn't notice, users don't make policies on Wikipedia. Why don't you learn how to use Wikipedia first, and then we'll talk. You could start by registering as a user instead of anonymously posting your illogical assertions that you don't sign... or at least man up and log in as a user and stop hiding behind an IP address. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(in response to no one in particular) Slur or no slur, it should be somewhere in the article. Probably not the infobox or lead, but somewhere. It's too well known to completely disregard. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) Maybe it's a generational thing. Most people I meet about my age remember the burning river (even those from other countries) and the iconic picture of mayor Perk's hair on fire is also very commonly remembered. As for the default, I have to say that barely even registers for me. Of course I know that it's not an official nickname -- but the nature of a nickname is that a subject (person/city/etc) is not always in control of the nicknames used to describe the subject. But I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be placed in the nicknames section of the infobox, but rather it could be placed with appropriate context in the history section. The History of Cleveland article does a reasonable job of describing the name. I understand not wanting to duplicate to much of the history article in the main article, but the appellation is so widely known that Clevelander Drew Carey is part of a series of documentaries titled Reason Saves Cleveland, in which "Mistake on the Lake" figures prominently. And I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall the name was used by more that just dim DJs. Try looking in Google News archives for use of the term. It comes up in many respectable newspapers, even the New York Times and The Times of London. Also, if Flint or Detroit are commonly referred to by an nickname in reliable sources, then of course I'd have no problem with incorporating that information into the respective articles with appropriate context. older ≠ wiser 11:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection with it being placed at some point in the article, but definitely not in the infobox. The best place would probably be in the 1960s-1980s section.THD3 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The best way to deal with the "Mistake on the Lake", is that it has to be acknowledged, but qualify it as a deragatory term.

Something like this:

"Nicknames for the city include, C-Town, The Forest City, etc. Critics of the city have referred to it as "The Mistake on the Lake".

You can't ignore it, but it belongs in it's own cataegory.

Vjmlhds 13:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is to be put in, I wouldn't even put it in the lead. Given that it is a dated nickname to a period in the 70s, what Vjmhds is suggesting would be more suited to working into this section: Decline. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is what I have done. "Mistake on the Lake" is not an "official" nickname a la "C-Town" etc, but a deragatory term that (unfortunately) caught on. I included it in the Decline section, and really that's where it should stay. Not in the lead.

Vjmlhds 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're full of it again Rycatcher773 -- Recent references to "the mistake on the lake"

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/columns/story?columnist=parker_rob&id=5819351

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/416856-lebron-james-worst-thing-for-cleveland-since-the-mistake-on-the-lake

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/americas-most-miserable-cities-business-beltway-miserable-cities.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38584814/10_Worst_Places_to_Live_in_America

just a few, the list goes on and on.

Why are dated nicknames such as "The Forest City", dated back to the 1830's

"Metropolis of the Western Reserve" and

"Sixth City", not true for over 60 years

allowed but not the perennially current "Mistake on the Lake"?

159.53.78.141 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The only one listed in the infobox is the city's officially recognized nickname. The 'Mistake' nickname is included in the article. Thanks for the input though. Isn't there anything else to do in Columbus than complain about edits the Cleveland article on Wikipedia?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, plenty to do when not at work. However, you're pretty hypocritical to whine about Cleveland's well-established nickname(which is not listed in the paragraph of nicknames), yet not be bothered about the lack of consistency and standards of Wikipedia. Oh and isn't there anything better to do in Chicago than concern yourself with nicknames about a city you left years ago?159.53.46.147 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Woodlandinator, 2 September 2011

Add a link to Lorenzo Carter.

Woodlandinator (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)