Talk:Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio

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

History[edit]

While this is good information pertaining to the article, it doesn't belong in the history section.

St. Paul's Episcopal Church began its mission in Oakwood on February 22, 1920 and moved into its current building on February 6, 1926.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.134.36 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on wealth[edit]

I have family in Oakwood, and I really must object to this article's emphasis on "wealth." While it is true that Oakwood is generally regarded as the affluent Dayton suburb, its residents are often accused of insularity and snobbishness. This article does nothing to alleviate that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.98.2 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is here to give the facts. It is not here to dispel commonly held beliefs unless those beliefs are factually inaccurate. An impression of "snobbishness" isn't exactly something that can be proved or disproved empirically. Lexicon (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you misunderstood. As a professional academic and historian (with PhD), who lived in Oakwood, I am well-placed to state that "commonly-held" beliefs are not, as most well-educated people know, synonomous with "facts". Wiki claims to be an encyclopedia site, not a repository for personal opinions. 68.72.83.21 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the chart[edit]

Note: This message assumes I'm dealing with only one person.

What is your problem with the chart illustrating the demographic breakup of Oakwood? I've asked this question three times from someone claiming to be Alex Bebris, the Director of Public Safety of Oakwood, and I have yet to receive an answer. Simply stating that you're an Oakwood resident and you don't want the chart in the article is not a legitimate argument to remove someone else's work. Being from Oakwood does not give you the unilateral authority to decide what should stay and/or be removed. Mind you, if the information is inaccurate, then by all means remove it by replacing it with the accurate information, but make sure you source where you're obtaining your information from. Again, claiming you're from Oakwood is not enough to show that the information is accurate/inaccurate.

Now I'm willing to reach an agreement with you and remove the chart if need be, but all I want is a justified reason for doing so. And, no, I will not discuss this over the telephone. Discussing the issue right here is the proper venue.—Dorvaq (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided my name, information, and contact number so that (IF YOU CHOSE to do so), you could verify who I am. I do not hide behind a screen name to do things anonymously.
Now, to how this all got started. Several weeks ago, I was contacted with a complaint about the Oakwood listing. At that time it contained inaccurate information, including information that falsly accussed a local teacher of dealing drugs at a local school. This is a violation of the Ohio Revised Code, and in fact, is a felony in Ohio. I chose at that time to NOT pursue the poster, but merely delete the offending and inaccurate information. I was told by a group of persons that they, as community residents would be watching and monitoring the page and would contact me with other concerns.
The chart has become a concern and this group has continued to contact me. It is perceived by many in the community as an attack on Oakwood. I have been contacted by about a dozen people complaining about the chart, about 3-4 of them very vocal. Why is it an issue? I dont expect you to understand, not being from the area, but Oakwood is often attacked and accussed of being discrimatory and non-inclusive. The fact is, while race demographics alone may be read that way, the chart does NOT accurately reflect the inclusive nature of religion, age, etc. The community is very inclusive, contrary to prior postings; one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities is in Oakwood. It is home to many University (UD) students and professors, and has a large representation from the military. The census does not break these groups out, and as such, a chart based soley upon race is an inaccurate portrayal.
Two: the existence of the chart is outside the 'standard' template of community listings. Look at the communities that surround Oakwood and others in the surrounding area. (Kettering, Moraine, Dayton, Cincinnati). What do you find? NO CHARTS on demographics. A reasonable person could infer that being outside the norm (having a chart) DOES single one out. I would not go that far, but do think that all communities should have their data portrayed in a similar fashion, if there is not a standard 'template'. For this basis alone - standardization - the chart should go.
Lastly, I will touch upon the theory of consensus. Why should you be allowed to continue the chart merely because your belief that it should be included, or even the arguement that just because it is factual it should be there? There have been more than one from Oakwood that have tried to remove the chart. That alone says that 'consensus' is not necessarily supportive of including the chart. If, there are more people that want the chart out than want it in - it should go under that tenet.
To sum up on why the chart should go: Inaccurate & not reflective of the nature of the community; not part of any form of standardization, not part of any consensus.
I will not remove this chart any more. I am washing my hands of this matter. To be quite frank, I tire of it and have better things to do with my time. If there are citizens who want it gone, they may remove it themselves. I only ask that if they do so, they do not do it anonymously and that if it is done that their wishes be respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abebris (talk • contribs)
On how this started
You are right. I may have been a little quick to revert some of the content removal, as some of the content you were removing was clearly disparaging. But in my defence, not all of the content was clear-cut vandalism and you weren't using the edit summary. Ever since you have informed me of the inflammatory content, I have left your edits alone, despite some still being questionable—other than the chart of course.
On your concerns
To make this simple, I will quote Lexicon from a post he made here to an anonymous IP address on this very issue. His comment does address most of your concerns.
On the attack on Oakwood
A chart which visualizes actual information cannot be offensive. One may take offense, but then, that is only because one is "ashamed" of the truth. As you say, you cannot object to the census information, as the census information is true. The chart, being just a representation of the information, is also not objectionable.
On standardization
As for the chart not existing on neighbouring communities, that would simply be because nobody has yet bothered to make such charts. If it is a helpful addition, it would be a step backwards to remove it simply because it doesn't exist on other articles--the proper thing would be to try to get charts added to other communities' articles. Now, if you think it is too big, the chart can always be resized--Wikipedia has this great ability to size images so that they best fit into the article.
On consensus building
Finally, as for your statement that if the people of Oakwood don't want it, it shouldn't be there, and that Wikipedia works on consensus, yes, Wikipedia works on consensus around the world, not just in your one little community, but in addition, consensus cannot be allowed to override common sense either. There truly is nothing offensive about a graphical representation of actual data. How, exactly, is the truth offensive?
Now I would also like to point out that if you look at the edit history of those who have removed the chart, removals from 3 different IP addresses (and Abebris for that matter) are your doing, which can be verified by the discussion and history on my user talk page, and Lexicon's alike. This leaves 3 edits from 2 IP addresses that can't be conclusively tied to you. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 edits made by the 1 IP address left is from the same person given the very short timeframe in which the edits were made. Doing the math, that makes 3 different people wanting the chart removed with one of them being you and two of them being (by Wikipedia standards) anonymous users—meaning they could be just about anybody; possibly even you. Now that's hardly a show of consensus.
Regardless, consensus building does not work that way here at Wikipedia. You don't just get a bunch of people from your community to come in and make the same edit, then pass that off as consensus. Likewise, you can't use the argument that you represent more than one voice, and therefore your position should outweigh those who represent only one. When it comes down to consensus, it doesn't matter who you are and who you represent in the real world, here at Wikipedia each editor represent only themselves, and therefore, only one voice.
Like Lexicon, I have no objection against a graphical representation of factual, objective data, and I don't see how that representation can be inflammatory, despite Oakwood's history of being attacked and accused of being discriminatory and non-inclusive. How people *may* end-up interpreting factual, objective data is irrelevant. Encylopedias, do not censor data to guard against misinterpretation.—Dorvaq (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the chart staying...it is very telling of Oakwood and what it is really made of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.31.4 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect?[edit]

Can this article be unprotected yet, there appears to be very little discussion going on and vandalism is unlikely to be too high. Thanks Suicidalhamster 09:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only semi-protected, so it's not that big of a deal. But I'll unprotect and see how it goes. Lexicon (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oakwood,_Montgomery_County,_Ohio&oldid=1204376503"