Talk:Cincinnati

Famous Cincinnati Natives ==> Famous Cincinnatians

I see in recent weeks that the names of several people who are often associated with Cincinnati have been removed from the list of "Famous Cincinnati Natives" because they were not in fact born in Cincinnati. These include Neil Armstrong and Rosemary and Nick Clooney, all of whom have been associated with the Cincinnati area in some reasonable fashion. It seems to me that the important thing is not whether they were born in Cincinnati, but whether they have a clear association with the city or the region.

For example, I see that Harriet Beecher Stowe is still listed under this heading, and I've not seen an effort to remove her while I've been watching. But the Wiki article on her clearly states that she was "born in Litchfield, Connecticut and raised primarily in Hartford."

So I am going to change the section title to "Famous Cincinnatians" with the intention that it list people with a clear connection to the city or the Metro area, whether or not they were born there. Pzavon 13:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be separate sections & I further suggest we put them in a table as the list is just getting too big, or possibly create a link to a list for famous people in Cincinnati. Possibly further explaining what makes one a "Cincinnatian" v. a native beyond the idea that they were just passing through or here a few years. --Duemellon 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with all these lists?

I am a significant editor of Louisville, Kentucky and related articles, and I have to say I'm a bit appalled at all the lists in this article that could easily be spun off into separate articles. Look at List of attractions and events in Louisville and List of famous Louisvillians for guidance. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Metro area is wrong

Someone listed the CSA population and not the MSA, which are two very different numbers. Please change. The MSA is smaller.

Present ?

Hello, Im Horatius of it.wiki. I've been told that the staute of Cincinnatus (this one) Image:Cincinnatus statue.jpg has been geven to the Town by Mussolini, the dictator? Thanks for any detail in my Discussion-page here: User Horatius on it.wiki. Vale! --151.37.228.204 09:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini gave the statue to the city September 30, 1931. Of course, the city is named after the Society of the Cincinnati and not Cincinnatus. Peyna 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a large mural honoring Cincinnatus(see photo) on the side of the Brotherhood Building in Cincinnati.-Crunchy Numbers 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I will be doing general cleanup and article revisions. Part of the cleanup will entail conforming the page(s) to the MOS. I will also be categorising according to other cities, such as Lexington, Kentucky and Louisville, Kentucky, and reducing page size by incorporating sub-pages.

For instance, I moved the majority of the History subsection to the History of Cincinnati, Ohio page. The section here on Cincinnati, Ohio was longer than the sub-page!

All in all, let's get this to Featured article status :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I appreciate your cleanup effort & desire to have it a featured page, let's not get all "China" with it & start removing details that make Cincy appear unfavorable. This is not a travel brochure, this is an ecyclopedic entry based on what really happened that the city is known for. For that part I am reincluding the details about the 2001 riots, previous race riots, & race relations. If you feel it is an inappropriate entry let's discuss a compromise. I would DEFINITELY feel fine with Cincy being a featured article that talked about some of it's social settings/structures in a balanced but honest way. --Duemellon 19:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Appearantly you did not look through History of Cincinnati, Ohio to see that it is still there and that no "China"ing occured. Whatever that means. It's not glossifying the page over, its moving the material to the relevant sections and pages to reduce the 50KB+ page size Cincinnati had before. That's totally unacceptable and the very poor condition of the article as a whole in that --

* The history on the main Cincinnati page was much more in-depth and complete than the bits and pieces at History of Cincinnati, Ohio. Fixed.

* The lists and lists of places and things go on and on. These need descriptions and clearifications. Some are probably not noteworthy.

* The links needing culling. Wikipedia is not a collection of links.

* Riots need inclusion, but under Law enforcement and crime or under history - where it is approperiate. Let's leave a little blurb on the main page, but it certaintly does not deserve its own section on the main page for the sheer fact its covered elsewhere. Let's keep the main page as clear and concise as possible.

Concerning your edit, it is still not referenced. I see no <ref></ref> tags, so the will remain because it is still not attributed. To learn about citing sources, see WP:CITE. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that Race relations has nothing to do with Government or Politics in the context you copied from History of Cincinnati, Ohio. It falls under the line of History, but if you want to make a seperate article out of it, such as Race relations in Cincinnati, Ohio and copy the text from History of Cincinnati, Ohio and cite it as a {{main|Race relations in Cincinnati, Ohio}} under History, that would be approperiate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Race relations are NOT HISTORICAL, they are contemporary & relevant. Please do not declare them as being unnecessary just to make it "nice". Assist in finding a way they will fit. The details were included BEFORE the the rest of Law Enforcement because the Law & Crime were referring to the riots. Makes sense the reader should be aware of the riots before they're mentioend, correct? There was a section for society/culture of sorts, but that appears to have been removed. Also, declaring Race Relations aren't related to Politics or Law is an opinion, right? As far as I could tell they ARE directly related to them. --Duemellon 02:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't resort to ad-homiem attacks or declaring unfit accusations. I'm about as unbiased as you can find because I chose to keep out of the loop on information such as this. The "race relations" were previously under the History section but I moved them to the seperate History of Cincinnati, Ohio where it was already in existance. No "removals", just a move. This is not glossing over the riots, just trimming down the page to keep the size at acceptable levels. If need be, a Society of Cincinnati, Ohio may be created if the section exceeds any reasonable size, in which the riots and any other extra information would be moved to that page. The user will still find it, and its not "glossing" over the page.

Race relations can do much with how the city developed and was characterised after de-population occured as a result of several factors. As with St. Louis, the exodus occured due to the cheap availablity of land due to increased transportation mobility that allowed middle/high income residents to move to more diverse landscapes (e.g. larger lots and houses).

My point? It can't all be boiled down to "law enforcement" or "government" or "politics". It spans many general categories, but your renaming of the section to "Society" works just as well.

I'll bring in a third-party to review the page if need be. Also, please indent your comments so that I can keep track of them easier. Thanks Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

1. All contributors need to Assume Good Faith, and avoid jumping to conclusions about the intentions of editors who are trying to better organize the content.
2. Race relations is indeed a major (and very sensitive) topic for Cincinnati, and thus deserves a good introduction (at least a few sentences) here, but should really be discussed in-depth via its own subarticle. No information hiding -- just better organizing.
3. Other city articles that are already featured should be used as organizing examples. I am biased toward my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, but as an article, it has been featured for well over a year. Draw upon it as a rich resource and guide for improving Cincinnati and related articles. Louisville even has had its own WikiProject since June -- I would recommend this for Cincinnati as well.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, my reaction to you was held over from other disputes from some individual (or individuals) who were running through these cavalierly removing or adding in bizarrely forced information about the race relations. I apologize for my original reaction, but as you can see I was trying to find a "midroad" & I'm glad you feel the "Society" label is appropriate. As you can see I didn't reinsert the entire Race Relations section as before & did attempt to keep it brief. Perhaps a different article about Cincy race relations is in order. --Duemellon 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, its a touchy issue. The section about race relations is lengthy so perhaps splitting it into its own page would be in order, which would allow for additional expansion, particuarly about the Underground Railroad center (which could be its own page). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Move question

Would it be acceptable to just have this as Cincinnati rather than as Cincinnati, Ohio? There doesn't seem to be any other towns named Cincinnati, "Cincinnati" already links to hundreds of articles, and it's a large enough city it could merit it. Granted there is the Society of the Cincinnati, but if someone wants that when typing Cincinnati they'll just end up here as is.--T. Anthony 08:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The proper city naming convention dictates that it be in the City Name, State format. The most common City Name can redirect to the convention. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this only work in the US or is it true of other countries as well? Tapachula just goes to Tapachula not Tapachula, Chiapas--T. Anthony 12:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are other cities named Cincinnati btw. --Duemellon 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Iowa is already disambig'd at the top of this page. Peyna 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Names of Cincinnati's Seven Hills & Origin of Its Queen City Name

From time to time, Cincinnati newspapers publish articles about the names of Cincinnati's seven hills and the origin of its Queen City name. The information is invariably misleading, or inadequate at best. The seven hills are fully described in the June, 1853 edition of the West American Review, "Article III -- Cincinnati: Its Relations to the West and South." The hills form a crescent from the east bank of the Ohio River to the west bank: Mount Adams, Walnut Hills, Mount Auburn, Vine-street Hill, Fairmont, Mount Harrison and College Hill. Cincinnati was first described as a queen by the Inquisitor and Cincinnati Advertiser on May 4, 1819, page 3, column 1. The language used is similar to the description of Babylon, an allegory for ancient Rome, in the book of Revelation. Thus, Cincinnati has a double connection to the pagan Roman Empire: the queen designation and the seven hills. This information was provided some years ago to the Cincinnati Public Library by the Church of Ouzo, but it was never properly communicated to the public. The newspaper article is on microfilm at the library, and the West American Review can be found in the Rare Books department. -- Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo

This has already been discussed at length. If you have something new to offer that isn't included in the talk archives, go for it, otherwise, move on to something else. Peyna 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC

This material should not be relegated to archives since it is source material that people have raised questions about for many years. It was vandalism to remove it from the article itself. RME

This has been discussed, and every user but yourself decided it does not need to be included in the article. So, unless that has changed, or unless you have something new to add, find somewhere else to spread your myths or whatever your trying to do. Peyna 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. It is also not considered vandalism to remove talk page comments and put them in the archives after discussion has ceased or there is general inactivity relative to the amount of comments on the current talk page. As it stands, you do not source or cite your material (to "RME") with credible or valid sources, therefore it will be removed without question. Continuance to do this violating several policies will result in warnings. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My material is cited with full and proper sources from the Cincinnati Public Library, and I'll thank you for desisting in your spurious "warnings." RME

For the curious, here is the previous discussion. Peyna 00:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Every user" is not limited to those posting comments, and saying that my comments are "myths" is a personal attack that is not permitted. RME

They are considered unsourced materials. Did you introduce approperiate citations from credible sites? No. Therefore, it cannot be allowed because it falls under original research. There was no "personal attack" and I am personally laughing that you equate "myths" with that. Please keep this on track. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't consider references to historical journals and newspapers to be sourced materials? Surely you must be joking! And you can laugh all you want about equating my comments to myths, but this is a personal ad hominem attack, pure and simple. RME

A blog is not a credible source. Your "source" that you cited is a very biased blog, which is not approperiate under WP:EL. See your edit: [1]. If you want to go and continue to rant about how your uncited and unverified edit (considered original research) is considered an attack against your character, feel free to do so. Just don't do it here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't necessarily the sources that your article cites, the problem is your article. It is original research. The conclusion you draw have no verifiable sources, only the material which you claim supports your conclusions is remotely verifiable. Frankly, you've hand-picked a number of coincidences and attempted to draw some kind of conclusion supporting your POV. Something that is commonly done by people who seek to find meaning in an otherwise chaotic universe. Peyna 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never cited a blog in my life. I think you're both confused on this issue. I have only cited an historical Cincinnati newspaper and literary journal. Yes, I have interpreted their published information, but that is not original research; it is merely an observation that is appropriate to a discussion section as opposed to the article itself. RME

And now I think you are just trolling aroumd. See your own [2]. I'm tired of dealing with this. All future unattributed references to this crap on the main page will be deleted. Period. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting pathetic. If you put on your glasses, I was deleting that blog, not putting it in. The only things I have attempted to put in the main article were the two historical references on the Queen City name and the names of the seven hills, legitimate references deleted by people like you. There is so much crap currently in the article, it's hardly worth reading. RME

(reset indent). The talk page is meant to be about the content of the article (what should go in, what shouldn't go in, etc.) So, unless you are proposing to add this to the article, the discussion doesn't even belong here. Talk pages are not here to talk about the subject of the article. See WP:TALK under the heading "Wikipedia help." Peyna 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I move to archive this thread to end the flogging of the dead horse. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused and perplexed about this. Seicer has twice referred to this edit as some sort of evidence of something or other that he considers bad -- but I fail to see what is so objectionable about that edit. Regarding the seven hills, it is odd that the nickname is given in the article, but without any indication as to why. This edit from the IP (RME) does describe the seven hills and references the "June, 1853 edition of the West American Review, "Article III". What is the problem? We can acknowledge that there is some controversy over exactly what the seven hills are, but it seems silly to not have any mention of it at all. older ≠ wiser 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant that much of the assertions in the previous discussion about connections to Rome are dubious OR (at least without better sources). But, it seems that some accounting of the common nickname for the city is appropriate in the article. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with their being a mention of which seven hills they are referring to when they call Cincinnati "the city of seven hills" or whatever; however, it would been to be verifiable, which might be an issue. Peyna 01:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some things of note I've discovered: There is a Seven Hills, Ohio[3], but it's near Cleveland, not Cincinnati. We have an article on the seven hills of Rome. Tallahassee, Florida is at least one city with a similar nickname.[4] A quick Google search will show you that there are a plethora of cities using the nickname. What really seems to be going on is that what people are referring to when they say "City of seven hills," is that "it's damn hilly," and whether those seven hills are any seven in particular or just a fancy way of saying "there are many hills in Cincinnati" is something that is open for debate. (See this[5] article regarding Seattle for a similar analysis.) See here[6] a more recent look at Cincinnati's situation, as well as a historian giving a pretty logical explanation for the nickname. I imagine the newspaper article cited by Mr. RME is among those wishing to spread the legend and make Cincinnati seem as grand as Rome. Peyna 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize the article and added an explanation to the nickname section. Please edit away. =] Peyna 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously a better Cincinnati historian than Dan Hurley, who was cited in the article. My reference to the 1853 West American Review article about seven specific hills encircling Cincinnati is something Mr. Hurley was apparently unfamiliar with. Also, as confirmed by the Cincinnati Public Library, I was the person who discovered the 1819 newspaper article describing Cincinnati as a queen. RME

And in 1819, when people wrote about Cincinnati they had a motive in making it appear as grand as Rome and a wonderful place to live. The same reason Dayton was called the "Gem city," to make it sound better than it was so people would want to come there. Peyna 13:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article and you haven't. The writer wasn't comparing Cincinnati to Rome. That is purely my interpretation. RME

Regarding the sources, let's use MLA Chicago format and use the ref tags. I put in a references section for that very purpose.

Now, according to this blog, you cited about the nickname issue. Just where is it? I don't see it in the current article. Note that if it is a user's opinion on what Cincinnati should be called based on his own inteperation, then it isn't a valid source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I never refer to blogs. RME

The porkopolis link was not added by me. Peyna 15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it's incorrect. The name porkopolis refers to the large meat shipping industry that used to thrive in Cincinnati. Peyna 15:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find a citation for that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati was famous for its nickname "Porkopolis":

10 April 1862, Chicago Tribune, pg. 1:

"The Beef and Pork-packing season in Chicago for 1861-62 is now closed, and the result exceeds the highest anticipations of the trade. We have long held the position of being the greatest Beef-packing market in the world; but even the most sanguine of our citizens did not dream of taking from Cincinnati the title of Porkopolis, at least for ten years to come. But the facts show that while Cincinnati this last season has packed 483,000 hogs, there have been packed in Chicago by regularly established packers, no less than 514,118 hogs, besides 55,212 beeves." RME

Cincinnati Nicknames

Being a native of Cincinnati myself, I felt it necessary to include on the nickname portion, that nearly all of the listed nicknames are rarely, if ever, used by locals.

'Nati was used as part of an ad campaign designed at educating people to not litter (Don't trash the 'Nati). Beyond that, most of these names are completely ridiculous. The 513? Cincitsnasti? The only one of these nicknames i've ever heard used by anybody is "The Pig City", which is often used in a similiar context as "Queen City" and "City Of Seven Hills", which are generally used in writing, but rarely in everyday speech.

Perhaps you don't hang around in the right crowds. Referring to a location by its area code is pretty common throughout the country now. "Nasty Nati" and "Cincinnasty" are only heard among certain groups of people. Peyna 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Common to who? Do you have sources? Is this verifiable? No. As it stands, I'm leaning towards removing the uncited nickname part because I can't find any verifiable or credible sources for this. If the city had a publication on it, that would be fine. But one person, or a "group" - that's not acceptable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am supporting removal of the nicknames too. The unsourced section does not use the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Names like "Cincinnasti" are unnecessary negativity in an article. - GilliamJF 08:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give another day to come up with a source and then it will be removed. It does add a negative tint to the article, one that isn't needed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I invite them to cite the rest in proper reference formatting too. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames such as "Cincinasty" (and many others I've heard) are commonplace to many other US cities (like "El Pisshole" for instance)... as such they don't really belong here as they are really shorthand for a sentence describing one's feelings about the city. As for "The 513", I've heard it alot. I have also heard "The 313" and "The 810" during time in Detroit. Consequently, these nicknames probably apply more to a growing cultural movement in the US to identify by area codes which may tend to represent economically or even racially segregated parts of metros.

Nicknames like "The Nasty" are not always a negative term, nor are we here to clean up negative terms. If it's a nickname & it's known then it has a right to be here. This is NOT a travel brochure! To only use the traditional nicknames & not give space for the more contemporary monikers is disrespectful to the current population & only hints at the place being extremely resistant to change. I've heard "the Nasty" being used as an effort to describe the sexual feel, the slyness, & other attributes. In fact, that nickname is used mostly by the urban population where the word "nasty" has taken on different meanings entirely. As for "the Nati" that really REALLY should be included it was used by the city for an ad campaign. When it comes to proving the wide use of The Nasty, what would be acceptable? I've seen T-shirts, heard rapsongs referring to it that way, poems, & other things. Most of these things do NOT have an internet presence & they will NOT be written in a news article, yet they are commonly understood in the urban culture (especially downtown). Wikipedia should not be used as a travel brochure for Cinti and people need to be respectful of the other cultures in the area. --Duemellon 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried finding sources for "the 'Nati", but all I could find (besides the titles of some blogs) was references to Keep Cincinnati Beautiful's "Don't Trash the 'Nati" ad campaign. Any ideas? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Until we find reliable cites for every one of them, they will be questioned and attributed with a missing citation tag. We've been over this before, folks, and unless you can produce a reliable cite, the passages in question will be removed... again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We understand that, and we're working on that. I just added four citations yesterday to the paragraph above it. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just didn't want to see a repeat of the mess earlier. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is: What counts as a reliable citation? As was noted, "The Nati" nickname is used in a campaign with no internet presence & is mostly repeated in conversation (again, not-citable, but very very common) & "The Nasty" is even more elusive for citation. When it comes to the alternate connotation of "The Nasty" being non-negative, why is that requiring a citation? The statement the 1st nicknames are used in "professional, academic and public relations" settings has no citation requirement. When & how can we introduce a common-usage term into Wiki but not have a linkable source?

After all, not everything has a presence on the 'net,.... yet. --Duemellon 13:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I did come across quite a few Enquirer and CityBeat articles using "the 'Nati", but none of them addressed the nickname specifically. That really drives me nuts! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a somewhat-outdated article in CityBeat saying how "the 'Nati" isn't really used that much among natives. [7] I don't know if that's the case anymore. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the natives aren't using it, but others are, it's still a valid nickname. Beyond that, the nickname is still used in things that can't be cited on the 'net. Someone please let me know how such things could still be effectively cited as sources or whether or not these MUST be cited? There are many things in this article were just said as uncited facts, why is inclusion of these terms so disputed without them? --Duemellon 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Even if the natives aren't using it, but others are..."

That is a wholly unsupported statement and constitutes original research. Not everything needs to be cited from the Internet. For instance, one of my pet projects on Wikipedia uses sources 20 years old in newspaper clippings - no Internet required there. But since Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource, all reasonable statements must be cited without speculation. As for the last sentence, if you want to help improve the quality of the article, you can always introduce citations or reword the offending statements as to go around that but as to not violate WP:OR. It's an article needing improvement but to remove every statement that is uncited would leave the article with not much at all; the citing of the nicknames is just a first step in getting this article better. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How would that statement be original research? We call the Austrialian Natives Aborigines but they don't. Everyone outside Cinti could call it Emerald City but no one in Cinti refer to it as such. The nickname would be valid. I did not, however, say that was the case for those nicknames, I was just pointing out how it doesn't matter if the nickname is native or not.

The question about citation is more about citing material that would not be in a newspaper, ever. It would most likely have no written documentation either. It is a widely used term in certain sections of Cinti. It may not be completely common, but how common does something have to be?

As for "original research", I think that's a nice thought but every article in Wikipedia, unless it's plagurized, is original research. --Duemellon 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please indent posts using the colons. It helps keep the talk page readable.

It is considered original research because there are no reliable sources for your assertions. It is unpublished and uncited, therefore it cannot be included. If you found citations and it is verifiable, then it is welcome. Otherwise, to keep this article to a high standard, we cannot accept unverified or unresearched statements because it could open the flood gates to other uncredible asertations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics issues

On 24 October, changes by 66.238.151.200 moved the Demographics section from referencing the 2003 Census to referencing the 2005 Census. Since the Census is only condusted in ten year intervals and was last done in 2000, this is not possible. Either this section has spurious data or it is referencing Census estimates - quite a different thing from the Census itself. Can someone look into this and provide to proper correction? I lack the time to do so. Pzavon 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above comment, it was released today in this article: [[8]] that the city population actually grew since 2000. The previous census estimates since 2000 displayed a sharp loss of population every year. According to the article, the Census bureau actually forgot to count a significant number of new housing units added to the city since 2000 and the associated population that came with them. The current article erroneously compares the 2005 estimate to the 2004 estimate to indicate the news of a +20k population increase since then. In all likelihood, the 2004-2001 estimates were all bogus and the population growth has remained stagnant since 2000, with the artificially inflated population loss due to not counting these new housing units. C K 70.62.16.218 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Cincinnati instead of Cincinnati, Ohio, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Commonly called Greater Cincinnati

Not a big deal, but... I've only lived in the area for three years, and I have to say that I've never heard the area referred to as "Greater Cincinnati" in the media or in common reference. Each area, I've found, has a strong local identity (IN or Northern Kentucky, or even the suburbs in OH) and does not refer to the area in a Cincinnati-centric way. When needed, the common term (if you can call it a term) among residents is "the Cincinnati area." Among the local media, when aiming for a slightly broader approach, I hear Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky often, or when referring to the whole metro area one hears the term "the Tri-State" almost exclusively.

I know that there are several metro areas in the US that are referred to in this way, so this may not be feasible to use. I would at least advocate re-wording the entry to avoid saying the entire area is called anything and just delete the phrase "commonly called Greater Cincinnati" as it is definetely not true that's it's common, and not necessary to the point being made that the metro area is much larger than the central city's popuation would lead one to expect). CincyJ 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As a Loveland resident, I've heard "Greater Cincinnati" a lot, and not just in referring to the airport. The media tends to use "Tri-State area" more often, especially in weather reports, simply because their coverage area extends beyond what is generally considered "Greater Cincinnati" to areas that don't identify themselves with Cincinnati so much. To me, Greater Cincinnati doesn't really include Southeast Indiana and Northern Kentucky, so it's a subset of the Tri-State area. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the weather...

I suggest removing this line:

Native Cincinnatians are often heard saying, "if you don't like the weather in Cincinnati, just wait half an hour."

The line currently has {{fact}} attached to it, but I can confirm that Cincinnatians do say something to that effect (maybe varying the wait time), and I think you'd be able to find references to that phrase in local media. As much as it surprises me, though, it isn't at all unique to Cincinnati. [9] Especially convincing is the quote from Mark Twain regarding New England weather.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Minh Nguyễn. As a lifelong resident of Cincinnati, I have experienced the local weather phenomena firsthand. In addition, many out-of-towners from around the country whom I have known have remarked on its unpredictability and seemingly random nature. I think it deserves some consideration. 70.62.16.218 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC) CK

I left Cincinnati some years ago (lived there mostly in the 1950s and 1960s), but my siblings still live there. The weather in Cincinnati is no less predictable than that in most of the rest of the country. An odd-ball storm comes along and everyone talks of unpredicatable weather, but that (the storm and the talk) happens everywhere. Cincinnati is not special in this regard. Pzavon 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly see how that is verifiable or even come from a reliable source. Cinci is no different, weather-wise, than other major cities. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

CK, I was asking that the line be removed. Lots of places have a similar saying, so it's not notable enough for this article. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

statistic needs correction

the last sentence under the economy subheading has a typo. one stat is for per fortune 1000 co's and the other is for fortune 500 co's. the sentence states two different stats for fortune 500's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.234.22 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Neighborhoods

There is a List_of_Cincinnati_neighborhoods, with appropriate wiki links, as well as a category for Cincinnati_neighborhoods. Surely we don't need to list every neighborhoor in this article as well. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Pzavon 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Deleted flags as per this diff, this article WP:FLAGS, this debate, and this admin. One down, umpteen thousand to go. Pedro |  Talk  21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Chili

  Cincinnati has a series of great restraunts. One of them is Skyline Chili. This city famous recipe is one that will be envied for years to come. They currently serve 3-ways and cheese coneys. If you mention Skyline to any Cincinnatian they will almost guaranteed have positive remarks about the restraunt and the recipe. They serve some of the best chili you can get in Ohio.

--Purplethief1 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)