Talk:Chattanooga, Tennessee

School system

Doesn't the comment that the schools "are greatly underfunded" lack NPOV? emw 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not if you consider the fact that there are severe budget problems. If the language of the statement is what you take issue with, what would you suggest? Jaimetout 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in Chattanooga (anymore), so I don't have firsthand knowledge of the situation. As I read the article, that phrase just stuck out to me as an opinion, not encyclopedic in tone. Your statement that "there are severe budget problems" seems less subjective to me. Are the budget problems within the school district or with the county or state? I think it could be made more clear, but I don't know the facts well enough to do it myself.emw 15:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Maybe the schools are well funded, they are just spending too much money. I do not know enough about the situation to modify but it should be modified.--Mercnboy3 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a talk page, I feel free to say this: Have you EVER heard of a public school system in the U.S. that is adequately funded? That said, I'd be willing to admit that Chattanooga's school budget problems are probably not any worse than those of anywhere else. Thus, this comment is superfluous and should probably be removed. Everyone agree with that? Jaimetout 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm for deleting.emw 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to work this out. Most of the debate stems from from the citys' private schools. A good fraction of the population (no cite, but I'd guess 7-13%) goes to a private school: the result is going to be a subconscious comparison since the child will probably know at least two other children in private schools. I don't think the underfunding is any different from Knoxville, but the angle is worked up because of the disparity with private schooling. T K E 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

Someone needs to completely overhaul the initial paragraph in this article. As a Chattanooga resident, I think it's highly unrepresentative the city we Chattanoogans know and love. I hardly ever hear a train, let alone see one, and that's not why people live in and visit Chattanooga and its surrounding mountains and river. Our downtown is vibrant and fun without obliterating the scenic and environmentally-minded aspects of our city. I moved to Chattanooga for college, but the longer I live here, the more I don't want to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.182.198 (talk • contribs)

It would have been nice if you had left your name and possibly some concrete suggestions on how to improve the article other than just saying "it sucks and I hate it". --ZekeMacNeil 19:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm also a Chattanoogan, and I don't have a problem at all with the article. I think it's fine and informative, and whether you like it or not, the city is well known for it's history with trains. It sounds like you'd prefer if there was a lavishly written essay on the beauty of the city.--[[User:]] 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Chattanooga also remains one of the largest freight rail hubs in the South. If you don't hear trains, you likely live on the eastern or northern part of the city, the rest is covered by rail. TKE 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

City Size

After the last edit in which a user changed the beginning text to state that Chattanooga is the 4th largest city in Tennessee rather than the 2nd, could someone find some supporting evidence for one or the other? Are we measuring city size by population or by area? ElfWord 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Population. Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville are bigger. Mike H. That's hot 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Skyline pic

Shouldn't the skyline pic be near the top, like other city articles? Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans... Mike H. That's hot 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone find a better skyline shot, that one is not representative at all. I can't even tell where that was taken from... Kerry W 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no skyline shot before, and I took it from Ruby Falls, so it isn't going to have a good focus. My motto is "Work with what you have," so I don't really appreciate the criticism. Mike H. That's hot 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's better than my cellphone picture of FEMA trailers rolling through on rail that I almost uploaded! Happy editing, Teke 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetization to conform with Wiki standards needed

Someone needs to alphabetize the Notable residents section to conform with Wiki standards. Although this article is relatively well-done, there are other Manual of Style issues with it as well.--Hokeman 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime

This section's statistics need to be verified. The latest I can find is 2004 with 23 murders. The part about gangs needs a reference or it should be removed. Besides, it's doubtful Chattanooga didn't have gangs until the summer of 2003. Also I found this quote from a local news website; Mayor Bob Corker, Chattanooga: "Crime has been reduced by 26% in this community in three years...maybe even more importantly, violent crime has been reduced by over 50%." Jan. 5, 2005. http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_60621.asp Upon further review, all edits (including demographics) by 68.59.202.190 seem to be vandalism and need to be reverted. This user has a history of vandalism. --70.126.38.53 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else think this section is ridiculous? I have no problems with actually putting crime statistics up, but 'There are thought to be over 50 separate sets of gangs in the Chattanooga area, ranging in size from 15 members to 100 members' is ridiculous. Who thinks this? I have lived here my whole life and have never heard this. 'There has been a very high number of gang related murders in the Summer of 2006' What... two, big deal. I am deleting it right now, comparably sized cities have no crime sections. Mercnboy3 13:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no crime section at all now? There are plenty of cities smaller than Chattanooga that have sections on crime. The Crips article even links to Chattanooga, so one is left with the impression that gang violence is a big deal there... Thanks Dubc0724 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a link to Chattanooga from the crips article, must have been removed. I have lived in Chattanooga my whole life and I have never seen any signs of gangs ( besides graffiti ). The fact that we are even discussing this is ridiculous. I would walk around downtown at any time of the day with no fears. Mercnboy3 11:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, you should first come to a consensus before completely removing the Crime section. If anyone wants it back, feel free to revert it back, I feel that we should first get a consensus. One person's opinions, although heard, don't prove that a whole section should be removed. Also, the person who removed the section is a previous (unverified) semi-vandal (all I could find was "your test worked, and was reverted" on his talk page) and although I am not convicting him of being an all-out vandal, maybe we should see if the deletion of the crime section was constructive... And, to the guy who made this section (70.126.38.53), I recommend you get your own account if you want to start convicting other IPs of vandalism (although we appreciate it, I've seen personally IPs don't get as much respect around here as registered users). StonedChipmunk 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link

A few days ago I added an external link that was removed (for reasons I can understand - previous removal is not being questioned) but I would like to propose replacing it. The link is chattanooga.tennessee.com and I believe it contains useful information about Chattanooga. Yes, there are commercial links contained within - but when visiting a new location, whether as a tourist or relocating, it's important to know what hotels are in the area, what restaurants are there, etc. The site also contains a lot of highly interesting (and useful) information such as a map pointing out places of interest, some text on the town, government contacts and demographics information, as well as a yellow pages directory. At this time, also, a lot of work is being done to improve this site, to make it more informative and user friendly and I believe as a link it would be beneficial to wikipedia viewers. --Lspitz 19 Jun 2006

Please review Wikipedia:External links. -Will Beback 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Climate

A climate section is conspicuously absent from this page. Anyone care to add it? --dm ^(talk) 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) §§

Overall as a resident of Chattanooga, I would have to say that the tone of this article sounds more like promotional material than legitimate encyclopedic information.

Railroads: Union Station

Considering there's a blank page for Union Station (Chattanooga), do all the railroads tht go through Chattanooga(CSX, NS, ect.) use this station? ---- DanTD 10:38, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Union Station doesn't exist anymore. It was destroyed when Ninth Street, now Martin Luther King Boulevard, was widened back in the seventies; Chattanooga hasn't had passenger service since 1970. The Krystal building stands approximately where Union Station once did, directly across the street from the Read House; its address is One Krystal Plaza because it's owner, Tommy Lupton, vehemently opposed the renaming on Ninth Street and refused to have his address be on a street named after an African-American.

Second oldest?

The second sentence reads "It is the state's second oldest major city behind Knoxville." -- but I'm not sure what this means exactly. The history section gives quite a few dates. If we're talking about the date of incorporation/charter as Chattanooga, wouldn't that be after the Trail of Tears, making both Kingsport and Memphis older. If the date is of Cherokee occupation, shouldn't the comparison be to Chickasaw occupation of Memphis (Chickasaw Bluffs), Kingsport as the Cherokee Long Island of the Holston, etc etc. If it is settlement by European-Americans, then Nashville's "French Lick" settlement dates back to 1769 (History of Nashville, Tennessee). Just wondering. Pfly 03:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sports

Recent edits to the table in this section had replaced the Chattanooga Steamers, allegedly a basketball team, with the Chattanooga Steam, which seems to be a men's semi-pro basketball team. I don't know if the Chattanooga Steamers still exist. If they do, they should not have been overwritten. The Steam have a website at http://www.steamfootball.com/ which says they are affiliated with the North American Football League, but I cannot find them on that league's website. The earlier addition indicated (as does the team website) that they are part of the Southeastern American Football League, which has a website at http://www.seafl.net/, but it is not apparent that this league is active or that this team is part of it. This is making me think that semi-pro sports teams such as this one are too ephemeral to deserve Wikipedia articles. --orlady 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I support taking them out for the reasons given. If proof can be shown that they are a significant contribution to city life, assuming they actually do exist, then they could be included with proper sourcing. I looked up the ABL website myself; it list many proposed/failed/defunct teams from the last few years, but no Chattanooga team of any kind was listed. - BillCJ 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chattanooga Steam is a semi-pro football team, not a basketball team. They are still active and members of the SEAFL and have been so for several years, if such information still matters. Checking the SEAFL website at http://www.seafl.net , you can clearly see their logo and the fact that they lost in the first round of the playoffs last season. Dark Lord Skippy 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the Steam and other semi-pro teams are no longer highlighted in the Chattanooga article, but the topic probably is still relevant to North American Football League. However, I never did find anything that convinced me they are still in operation this season. --orlady 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Their 2006 season ended in late 2006. The 2007 season wont begin until June. As semi-pro teams, they play during the summer and early fall with playoffs in the November-December range. They have current information on their site up to and including those playoffs and championships. The information I cited IS the most current information they can have. Newer information on the site wont start appearing until close for their season openers in June-July. Of course, all of this refers to the SEAFL not the NAFL. The Steam do not belong to the NAFL, which is most likely why you fail to find information on that site.Dark Lord Skippy 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for being confused, but I have been unable to find useful information on the websites referred to here as authorities. Today the SEAFL website appears to have been redesigned; unfortunately, the links on the homepage that are supposed to point to topics such as "Teams" do not work. The last time I saw the Chattanooga Steam logo on the SEAFL website, the most recent information on the page was from the 2005 season. However, today I did manage to find content on http://www.steamfootball.com/ which verifies that the team was active this past season. The website also says the team is a member of the SEAFL and a licensed team of the NAFL, giving me the impression that the SEAFL is part of the NAFL. I'm still very confused...--orlady 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that the SEAFL website is already gearing up with a new look for the 2007 season, so the results of the season which ended just a few months ago seem to have already been taken down. I still fail to understand the source of your confusion since even you yourself seem to have found that the team is active. Of course, it may not matter at this stage, since the entry for their team has already been eliminated. Dark Lord Skippy 03:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Chattanooga, Tennessee → Chattanooga — The latter currently redirects to the former. Chattanooga, TN is by far the largest city with this name, and the most well-known use of the word, thus fullfilling the Primary topic criteria. The Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia pages have recently made similar moves, for the same reason. BillCJ 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Move withdrawn in face of concerted opposition from non-editors of this page, who game the system to ensure their will is followed, and efforts to leave regular editors unaware of the process. - BillCJ 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is ownership of a page to the editors who regularly edit this page, if anything there is a conflict of interest by editors of this page because they maybe attached to the subject matter in some way. There has been heavy discussion on the naming convention page about the convention that this move request would have affected. I encourage your particpation in that discussion. This is not a matter of gaming the system but rather of establish consistency within the US naming convention. Agne 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand that no one OWNS a page. I was referring solely to the fact that no regular editors participated, nor is there any way to let them know on the article page. By "gaming the system", I am also referrign to such attitudes as if anything there is a conflict of interest by editors of this page because they maybe attached to the subject matter in some way! Thanks but no thanks to you offer to participate in the discussion, as my "biased" opinion would render my efforts fruitless, as I am "attached" to the city I was born in. - BillCJ 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Support votes

1. Support. For the record... (next time, don't give up so fast). --Serge 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I got overwhelmed, and just didn't see the point of holding out. - BillCJ 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Strong oppose. New York City is probably a justifiable exception, as some consider "New York, New York" to only refer to Manhatten, while "New York City" more clearly refers to all 5 boroughs. But I would have strongly opposed the Chicago and Philly moves if I had been aware of the proposals since I believe the long-standing city naming standard should be adhered to, and DEFINATELY not violated on a case-by-case basis. Besides the many arguments others have made to conform to the existing standard, I like to be able to link to any U.S. city knowing where the article will be located. Where this is headed would require memorizing which cities do and don't follow one of the longest-serving Wikipedia standards. Since in all three cases the bare city name is/was a redirect to the 'city, state' version, moving the page doesn't change people's ability to access it without typing in the state. People working to overturn long-standing Wikipedia standards is one of the reasons my editting has dropped from hundreds per week to hardly any. Niteowlneils 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I don't see a clear need to move the article. The naming convention works best when it is followed broadly and no reason for overriding it has been given. -Will Beback · † · 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose as in the past the article is correctly named based on the current naming convention. There is no consensus on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) for a change in the convention. Likewise there was a request to not seek additional article moves while a discussion to see if there is consensus to change the quideline is ongoing. Vegaswikian 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose I've expressed my opinion before that NO city article should just have the city name (so Toronto should be at Toronto, Ontario for example). TJ Spyke 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Here we go again. The convention (despite Canada & NYC) is to qualify: city, state. The redirects exist and so do a ton of discussions about why. Sorry, too tired to point the way to them--RCEberwein | Talk 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Another spin on the City Only merry go round set to the 80's classic You Spin Me Round (Like a Record). More seriously, I oppose for the laundry list of the reasons that have been discussed on WP:NC:CITY and what I've laid out before. Agne 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I agree with all the above, including Vegaswikian, TJ Spyke, Niteowlneils and Agne. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose While Chattanooga is probably the only municipality of its name, it does require disambiguation from the Battle of Chattanooga. There is no argument here that it is known world-wide, like New York or Chicago, and the several proposals for exceptions to the standard convention do not list it. Better to have the predictable name and the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Where I come from, "settlements" means its been settled, but you're telling to read it b/c it isn't settled? Hmm. Had I read that page beforehand? No, because it's not listed to any of the Move pages, which is where one goes to move a page. That's the problem with Wikipedia, some little group somewhere decides something, and they expect people to search out their ruling, and condem them if they don't know about it. Sorry, but it's just plain silly that Chattanooga is a redirect. And naming conventions are guidelines, not policies; they don't HAVE to be followed, especially if it's stupid. - BillCJ 04:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having city article names just at the city is stupid. "Chattanooga, Tennessee" sounds better and a more likely sarch term than just "Chattanooga". TJ Spyke 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BillCJ, I couldn't help but notice that for a number of your edits you cite "guidelines" and "naming conventions" so you don't seem to be averse to rulings per se? Also, one doesn't go to move a page just because one wants to. You check to see how similarly situated items are treated and then, if it will be exceptional, you try to find out why the norm is different--at least that's what slows me down when I think something isn't right. And believe me, I find a lot of conventions here that I don't agree with, but they require consensus to change.--RCEberwein | Talk 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Toronto, Ontario is at ... Toronto. - BillCJ 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And it should be at "Toronto, Ontario" IMO. TJ Spyke 06:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Canadians use a different naming scheme to Americans. Its a different country after all. Frelke 10:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record

1. I did NOT break any policies or guidelines in requesting the above move. I followed all proceedures in requesting a move, including placing notices here, and on the Requested moves page.
2. I in no way obstructed anyone's participation in this matter, at any time, nor did I try to sneak the move in "under the radar". Had I been able to perform the move myself, I would not have, nor would I have done so against the consensus on the page.
3. I did follow existing precedent in requesting this move, tho I did know it was contrary to previous existing naming conventions.
4. I DID violate a REQUEST (not policy, not a rule, not a guidelne!) not to request further moves, AS I WAS UNAWARE OF such a request. At this point, I have still not found that request anywhere, no has anyone provided a direct link to it.
5. At no point have I used profanity, namecalling, or other disruptive means in expressing my opinion.

In summary, I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING TREATED AS IF I HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG in making the move request. I am not a vandal, nor do I purposely ignore conventions or consensus on a regular basis.

As for the naming conventions on cities, I think the genie is out of the bottle. I see no signs of returning to the existing status quo. "Requesting" no such moves be made until a new consensus is reached, with all likely hood of that not happening in the near future, is a backhanded way of trying to enforce your will without a consensus.

As stated above, I will not participate in discussions on this matter in general, as some of the participants do not respect the opinions of those who actually edit the pages subject to the conventions being discussed. I have said my piece on this issue, and would like to be done with it. - BillCJ 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. As one of the oppose voters, I agree you did everything you should have, and behaved appropriately in the face of what was to you quite surprising opposition to the move. Best wishes with your future Wikipedia contributions. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And thank you. - BillCJ 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that opposition to the move should have been surprising, but I don't think that BillCJ was wrong to suggest it. I don't think it was a bad faith proposal. -Will Beback · † · 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mock Trial Source

http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/results2002.cfm http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/results2003.cfm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silverhand (talk • contribs).

Thanks, Silverhand. I think there are two claims here:

1. The community is home to a prominent homeschooling community. 2. The homeschool community won the above-listed national mock trial competitions.

The second has been ably sourced by Silverhand. The first is more difficult, though. I'm not sure if the second point is enough to make the homeschool community "prominent" (though it obviously helps). But the second point is also dependent on the first - if the homeschool community isn't notable, then the wins are probably not either. So I think what we need here is some source for why the Chattanooga homeschool community is notable / prominent. Anyone have anything like that? I'd be willing to bet there's something out there that we could use. (Alternatively, we could just say that the second point proves the first - I'd certainly be open to that if that's what people think.) --TheOtherBob 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think TheOtherBob's analysis is pretty much on target. I'm aware that the mock trial teams won those back-to-back national titles, which is neat, but I guess I'm on the side saying that it doesn't make the homeschool community prominent. I looked on their website and couldn't any find info about the size of their organization, though it does mention their scope (parts of SE Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama). This tells me that their organization (CSTHEA) encompasses much more than Chattanooga, which could be another argument against including it (since we don't really know how prominent the Chattanooga portion of it is). Aside from that, there are other other area schools with vibrant support in the community, some of which are not listed (David Brainerd, Tennessee Temple, Grace Baptist, among others). If the goal is to list all the schools and their notable accomplishments, that would be fine, and we could have a very long section, but it might not be pertinent information about Chattanooga. It seems like that type of information might be best left to the Wikipedia pages for the individual schools. Jfwiii 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on the research aspect of this. Although I've not found a source where someone comes out and says Chattanooga Home Schools are superior to those in any other city, by the same distinction I've not found any that have had the successes Chattanooga's had. Another point, the city of Nashville made it a point to issue a resolution crowing about one of their schools beating Chattanooga's Home Schools in Mock Trial the next year. So where is the line drawn and how thin is it? --Silverhand^Talk 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Economy

I'm originally from Chattanooga and appreciate the article (and ongoing discussion). I wanted to offer that McKee Foods, maker of Little Debbie snack cakes is also headquartered in the area. I know it's technically Collegdale (which has an article, and is kind of a unique city for its Seventh-day Adventist history), so I wasn't sure if it should be added or not. Any opinions? MLHarris 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It should go on Collegedale's page for the sake of propriety. However, one COULD note the Chattanooga Bakery, which makes the one, the ONLY... Moon pie! :) --Silverhand^Talk 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of External Links

Please visit WP:EL. This entry has dozens of inline external links that need to be removed and/or placed in a citation, the external links section, or on the items own entry (like The Chattanooga Pulse). Qmax 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

my additions

I made some additons to the page about TRAVEL and ECONOMICS, they were removed.

Why, and how do I contact the person who removed the netries directly?

this whole way of contacting people on wiki is confusing at best.

alexrose1Axelrose1 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

e-mail is welcome too..:-)

Conflict of Interest and self promotion

Qmax, please review the conflict of interest and promotion guidelines before reverting changes or adding content/links about your company or clients (past, current or via a third party) to articles. The companies in the section you edited list major Chattanooga companies and employers, not every business. Please also note I am not questioning the addition of Tricycle. Since this seems to be an ongoing issue, I am asking for other comments and discussion. Flowanda 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have reviewed, numerous times. The companies I listed are notable, sustained by multiple independent sources, do not have NPOV problems, and there's certainly not an overwhelming amount of Chattanooga companies with wikipedia pages trying to make it into "the list". If you have a substantive/concrete/specific reason why it shouldn't be in the list, please share it, as I try to go above and beyond to conform to wiki standards. If you think I haven't, say explicitly why, not some "it doesn't feel just right" generality. Qmax 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will restate my original comment: The companies included in the section are large national and international corporations that are headquartered in Chattanooga; Coptix is not. Rock Creek Outfitters is not. To open the section up for such companies to be listed in ways that prevent the article from just being an all inclusive list or directory should be discussed first in the talk pages, especially when they deal with your company or company's clients. Continuing to add your company into this section without gaining consensus may be construed as self promotion, which should be avoided, as are comments that could seem to dismiss other editor's comments as groundless. Flowanda 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What you need to show is why Coptix and Rock Creek should not, from a wikipedia policy, be included in the listing of local companies (nevermind that Coptix has clients both national and international, and Rock Creek ships all over the world). Further, there's no policy anywhere that says local company listings should only include "large national and international corporations". And further, the issue as always is not the person doing the editing, it's whether or not his/her edits are appropriate for wikipedia and notable. Again, the companies I list are notable, sustained by multiple independent sources, have no NPOV issues in their article, and are consistent with content of the article as a whole. Until you can show otherwise and/or present an argument and/or policy against their listing, I do find your complaint groundless. But, as always, feel free to request a third person's input and/or to appeal. Qmax 23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification...I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I'm not defending the way the section is structured or disputing the companies you're adding; my edits and comments reflect keeping the list consistent as it stands now. The section definitely needs to be expanded to accurately depict other notable Chattanooga businesses with or without articles in wikipedia, but the issue does become who is making the edits when the why/why not becomes an ongoing issue. For me, the issue boils down to: Coptix doesn't belong in the section as it stands, the section is poorly written and not representative of the many its notable businesses, Coptix and other similar businesses should be included in a section that discusses similar notable Chattanooga businesses beyond just listings (Coptix' recent notoriety, Smart Furniture innovative designs, Sticky Fingers' origins, for instance), editors with close ties shouldn't be significantly adding or editing related content, but be visible, vocal resources on talk page discussions, and that questions, requests and debates aren't complaints and should not be considered groundless because of either the lack or abundance of rules. Flowanda 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with your point that the section (and the entire article as a whole) needs significant cleanup. Part of the reason I've been such a bit proponent of the Chattanooga Task Force. I certainly don't think Coptix (or Smart Furniture, or whomever) absolutely must be in that list, but it's removal at this juncture given the lack of warrant from wiki standards/policies and it's inclusion's consistency with the rest of the article (and similar city/town articles) would seem arbitrary and based, at best, on my association with the company. As to my association, while I agree with you that one should be careful, again, a users contributions are not judged on the users possible NPOV's, but on the warrant and quality of the contributions in and of themselves. I took a risk stating who I was upfront, knowing that folks could find all sorts of information about myself on the internet and accuse me of bias. I figure I'd rather get that stuff right up front, and do my damndest to be NPOV, which is why, again, if you can show me where I've contributed something that is wrong/in violation of wiki policies/standards/or guilty of NPOV, then I'm all about changing/reverting etc. But until then Qmax 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I wrote the following response before seeing the most recent postings by Flowanda and Qmax.

Okay, I'll jump in as a third person. First I'll say that I grew up in Chattanooga and still visit a couple of times a year, but have lived elsewhere for almost ten years now. I have contributed very little to the Chattanooga article, but keep an eye on it. I read the first comment by Flowanda and the first response by Qmax not knowing what companies were disputed (except that Tricycle was mentioned by Flowanda). Looking then at the article itself, I immediately suspected Coptix (because I'd never heard of it) and Rock Creek (because I know it is a small retail shop).

Re: Rock Creek: In the age of eBay and Fedex, selling and shipping "all over the world" is a poor criterion for notability. There are probably dozens of businesses in Chattanooga that ship as much product as Rock Creek. Do we want to list them all (or even open the possibility)?

Re: Coptix: This is interesting because the company is notable for a hoax, a spoof, and a CBS Sunday Morning segment. The hoax and spoof are not really business dealings, and the reference linked to CBS Sunday Morning has no mention of Coptix. I'm not even sure it should be on Wikipedia at all myself. At the very least, I think Qmax should recuse himself from any discussion of the merits of including Coptix. There is a clear conflict of interest.

Re: Tricycle: There is really nothing in the Tricycle article I wouldn't expect to read on the official site. It seems like an advertisement to me.

Another thing: The section in question is "Economy," not a list of noted businesses in Chattanooga. To me that suggests the companies listed should be large enough and/or prominent enough to have an impact on the area's economy. That distinction might eliminate some of the other businesses listed, too--I don't know. --emw 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourism citation

I moved this statement to this page since it was unsourced, and I could not find any references to it: "Chattanooga has been voted the number two family destination in the country, behind Disneyworld." I sent an email to the Chattanooga CVB, but received no answer and will contact their public relations company to see if they have updated sources. Flowanda 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. It certainly needs a verifable source. I wouldn't mind seeing more data on that, esp. to see if they mean "Orlando" instead of "Disneyworld", or if Orlando is listed furter down. - BillCJ 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chattanooga Market has been cancelled for 2008, so that need editing. I would do it but I'd probably mess it up so i won't.

Resource articles

I came across these articles that I thought might be useful references when adding/expanding environmental and revitilization discussions:

http://www.utcomchatt.org/AboutChatt/AboutChatt-PressReport-Parade.htm

http://www.americancity.org/article.php?id_article=66

http://www.rivercitycompany.com/dtstory/Vision_2000.asp

http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/tools3.htm

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/09/26/focus14.html

Flowanda 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Population Figures

The metro population estimate currently on the page (658,201) is for the Combined Statistical Area, which includes Cleveland, TN and Athens, TN. The Metropolitan Statistical Area population (496,704 est. 2006) is typically more commonly used to represent the metro population.

In addition, both the city population and the metro population are 2006 estimates by the Census Bureau. The City of Chattanooga is disputing the 2006 estimate, at least informally.

Is it more appropriate to use 2000 figures, and which metro population measure is more appropriate? Jstein4716 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"well-known" schools

I did not state that the schools removed were non-notable, but rather that there was no proof of notability. Wikipedia is not collection of indiscriminate lists. We must use reliable sources in article to prove the notability of items int he text. I removed the schools without any articles or sources because they do not meet these policy requirements. The text in question is not simply a list of schools (such a list would be far too long for this article). The text states: the city is home to several well-known private and parochial secondary schools (emphasis added). What defines well-known? I have heard of each of these schools, but for me to decide they are "well known" is original research. If the list stayed simply as it is, I could live with that, but anyone who watches this page knows that schools are added and removed from the list several times a month. As such, it's basically a "spitting contest" over whose school should be listed and whose shouldn't. That is partly why WIkipedia has the soucing policies that it does, to prevent these kinds of silliness, and to allow editors to cut backs lists that grow like this. I won't revert Orlady's good faith restoration of the unlinked schools, as she is an editor witha good reputation here. If she has a policy to cite which exuses schools/cities from thes notability requirements, or some other reason why policy should not be applied here, then she is welcome to present her case. (Using third person as I don't want to sound accusatory, even tho it reads a bit awkwardly). - BillCJ 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After five doays with no discussion from Orlady or anyone else, I am again removing the schools with no proof of notability. - BillCJ 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)