Talk:Dallas/Archive 1

Wondering how to edit this City Entry?
WikiProject U.S. States might help.

---

One point that this entry doesn't cover that might be worth adding - what's of interest to the visitor to Dallas? I've got a cxvcxvcxvcxvcxvzvxczvxccxvcxvvcxvcvxcxvcxvcxvcvvcvcxv

Go check out the Sixth Floor Museum (the old School Book Depository building) in downtown Dallas for exhibts on the JKF acvcxvcxvcxvcxvcxvcxvvxzcxvcxvcvx interesting. There is some interesting nightlife fun with live music just north of downtown in the Deep Ellum district. Just north of Dallas in [[Addison, Texascvcvcxvcxvcxvcxve museum with vintage combat aircraft. If you are a food connoisseur Dallas is known for its restaurants, both in terms of quantity, variety and fine dining. Six Flags is in nearby Arlington next to where the Texas Rangers play. Or watch the Mavericks or Stars play in there new arena downtocvcxvcxvcxvNoMoJo|—B]] 22:32, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

Why was the first Dallas skyline picture replaced? The preceding picture was far better than the current one. B 20:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the new picture is worse. I tried reverting it and it didn't seem to work (plus, I only clicked REV once and the page makes it look like I clicked it 3 times). I guess I don't understand the image files. We need someone to revert it back. Jfitts 21:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The problem with reverting the picture seems to have worked itself out. The original skyline photo is back in place. I re-uploaded the incorrect photo with a different name so the user who uploaded it can use it elsewhere. Jfitts 05:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Religious bias?

The section on religion in Dallas seems rather flip and perhaps biased -- almost the sort of put-down one would expect from a New Englander talking about anything Southern. I spent my entire adult & professional life in Dallas, and I was always much more aware of the large number of not only conservative Baptist churches, but ditto Methodist, Assembly of God, and many other fundamentalist types. This also ignores the influence of the Episcopal Church among the older semi-wealthy segment of the population (as shown by the reputation of St. Mark's), and also the fact that the Jewish community in Dallas, though small compared to someplace like New York or Chicago, has been influential for a very long time. (Look at the Neiman and Sanger families, among others.) Not to mention the significance of the Roman Catholic church among the constantly growing Hispanic population of Dallas. (I say all this, by the way, as a card-carrying secularist.)

Sorry -- this was from me, but I neglected to sign it. --Michael K. Smith 18:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the religion section needs to be rewritten. I joined Wikipedia in late 2003 and as a resident of Dallas I have been tweaking this article ever since. There are several sections that still need to have the POV removed, the religion section being one of them. This has been on my to-do list for a while. Your note has encouraged me to work on it again... but I notice on your user page that you list this article as having a heavy rewrite in the works. Have you already started a rewrite of the religion section (or any other section)? --Jfitts 15:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I echo the sentiment of the original post. I'm bothered not only by the article's chip-on-shoulder tone about Protestant morality in Dallas (contrasted with the high divorce rate and drinking establishments that apparently "line the avenues", whatever that means), but also by its sketchy grammar and dubious logic (e.g., Dallas isn't in the Bible belt because of the Protestant influence on the city, it's in the Bible belt because that's where it's located; it would be more accurate to say that the Bible belt extends into Texas because cities like Dallas have a large Protestant influence, etc.). I think it's clear that the author was trying (ineffectually) to prove a point with this paragraph, but it adds nothing to the article and seems remarkably out of place, especially since no other city I could find has a similar section. The only thing keeping me from deleting it outright is your promise to clean it up. Please, please do. -- Aubrey, 4 Nov 2004

I agree that the Religion section is lacking NPOV. I took a first stab at clean-up by removing the following text: Although the avenues are lined with drinking establishments.... Not only is it too subjective to belong in the article, but, for the reasons mentioned by Aubrey, it seems biased. - Walkiped 02:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a rewrite is in order

I think it's about time we start rewriting this article. There are three problems I'd really like to address:

• This article has entirely too much trivia. The bottom half of the article is almost entirely lists of things. While none of it is incorrect or even needs to be removed, the information needs to be presented differently. Much of the information (history, especially) needs to be incorporated into an honest-to-God, full-blown section.
• The article partially addresses the city of Dallas, but quite a bit of it would be more appropriate in an area-wide article (it's just the nature of this town - things are scattered all over in multiple cities). The article repeatedly makes mention of companies headquartered in the suburbs, people from the area born in suburbs and sports teams that aren't actually in Dallas. Some of the information needs to stay, of course, but much of the article covers Dallas from a region-wide, suburban perspective.
• Finally, the article is just really lacking in substance. Now, you could argue that it's just like the city of Dallas itself in that regard (and I can't completely disagree) but there is so much more that Dallas has to offer and I'd like to see the article reflect that.

So. Who's with me? :) I'll start working out a general outline. Anybody who has comments or would like to contribute, please make a note of it below. Thanks! RADICALBENDER★ 21:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's the start of an Outline. RADICALBENDER★ 22:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George M. Dallas

didn't become VP until March 1845... john k 00:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Awfully white

For a city with such a dynamic Mexican-American community, which was part of the cotton belt, where Deep Ellum was once an important place on the map of the blues world, and where the caste system has only started to break down in the last half-century this article presents an awfully white Dallas. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edie Brickell

I notice the addition of Edie Brickell. The article on her doesn't say where she's from, but I thought she was from Austin. Was she perhaps a transplanted Dallasite who made her name in Austin? Or am I totally mistaken? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I know she graduated from DISD's Arts Magnet High School (now the "Booker T Washington School for the Performing and Visual Arts"), and used to go back there and perform when the New Bohemians were big.

Also, her VH1 biography has her born in Oak Cliff.

OK -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Intro length

The article introduction is over-long; the style guide sets a strict limit of three paragraphs, this article has six -- and a bullet-point list to boot. The material on history, and speculation as to the origin of the name, could surely be moved into the body of the article. Alai 19:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following, due to it being untrue and nonstandard:

---

All photos courtesy of the web site of John Roberts : http://www.miduppertexas.com/dallas/dallas.htm.

Someone may want to go through the unverified photos and see if they're from that site. --SPUI (talk) 14:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images Dallas5.jpg and Dallas6.jpg clearly appear on the frontpage of that site, which also resolves to http://www.dallasarchitecture.info/dallas.htm. Both images are now marked as possible copyvios (one by me and one by a previous editor). The site also has archives of a number of other images. I didn't go digging to see if any of the other images in the article had been taken from there, but they could have been. Dragons flight 15:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Population: citation?

Recently, anonymously added: "According to more recent projections/estimates (From 2005) the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex has reached a population of 6,000,000." Sounds about right, but does anyone have a citation on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 15:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just a minor spelling correction: The plural of "tornado" is "tornadoes" not "tornados". Daninbigd

Upside-down picture

Uh, anyone else notice that the night picture from the International Space Station is upside down when you click on it to see it larger? Actually, I don't know which way is right, but one of them is upside down.

Yes, That is the way it was taken. I noted that in the original caption but someone edited this information out. I will rotate the image and reload. Zyzzy 2 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)Zyzzy

Satellite images

Is it really necessary to have four (count 'em) satellite images of the Dallas area on the page? I mean, there's the first one under, 'Geology', which outlines the different geographical regions, then there's the landsat 7 image, then the ISS image, and finally some image supposedly taken by an astronaut which doesn't really show much anyway. One would think we could probably reduce these images, and perhaps add other pictures, perhaps pictures of actual things and points of interest in the city itself? Dr. Cash 16:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Census designations

User:UH Collegian added information about the new Dallas—Plano—Irving metropolitan distinction created by the US Census. I removed this. I'm not challenging that this is probably true, but I don't think it is useful to describe the Metroplex in this way. The existing introduction follows the way the area is usually described by people familiar with it, and I think the introduction should stay that way.

I presume the census distinctions are useful for census takers, but they tend to be unfamiliar. For example, if we followed census distinctions, the San Francisco Bay Area would be renamed the "San Jose Bay Area". Common english descriptions just work better for introductions. I wouldn't object however if you want to add this material to the demographics section of the page. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 06:06 (UTC)

No, I did not make that up. Here is a link to the source: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/List4.txt The Dallas—Fort Worth—Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (official title) has two "metropolitan divisions", something that was created in 2003 by the U.S. Census. The two newly created metropolitan divisions within the Dallas—Fort Worth—Arlington MSA are Dallas—Plano—Irving and Fort Worth—Arlington. I was trying to provide FACTUAL information but something factual and hardcore fact with proof was denied and reverted! UH Collegian 7 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)

Having family in Dallas, I can tell you that it is simply not how residents refer to area. I still don't believe it makes sense to replace the well-known Metroplex term in the introduction with fairly arbitrary amalgams only used by the census. As I said, I'm happy to mention it in the demographics sections. Do you disagree that far more people refer to the area as the Metroplex?

I see now that you have clarified this in a new version to retain the well-known Metroplex term. I still disagree with the prominent usage of Dallas—Plano—Irving metropolitan division since I think it is weird, without being particularly useful. However, I won't revert it again without getting other opinions. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 07:09 (UTC)

I just thought it would be interesting to include Dallas—Plano—Irving since it is something new. I did not mean any harm by including it. It's more like a trivia and thought something people should know or be aware of. Also, the census never had a "metropolitan division" for certain defined metropolitan areas until 2003. I included it because I thought it was a good example sine the DFW metroplex is the only metropolitan area in Texas that has a "metropolitan division" designated by the U.S. Census. UH Collegian 7 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

As for the "San Jose Bay Area" and/or "San Francisco Bay Area", those are NOT the official titles. They are really San Francisco—Oakland—Fremont and San Jose—Sunnyvale—Santa Clara. In addition, the San Francisco—Oakland—Fremont has two "metropolitan divisions" and they are Oakland—Fremont—Hayward and San Francisco—San Mateo—Redwood City.UH Collegian 7 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Okay, technically I am refering to the 2003 change from the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Combined Statistical Area to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area, effectively giving San Jose top billing as a bay area city despite San Francisco traditional placement. Much of the news coverage at the time refered to it as the "San Jose Bay Area" as a result. Also, I don't think we should get hung up on census designations as "official" titles. Certainly, many city governments make usage of terms like "San Francisco Bay Area" and "Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex", which is an official endorsement of a sort. Besides, who wants to talk about living in a "combined statistical area"? Dragons flight July 7, 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Incorrect information is displayed

The "city" of Dallas is the third in TX and 9th American largest city, according to the 2004 Census Estimates. See: List of United States cities by population. --147.97.138.210 18:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Dallas will be the second largest city in the state of Texas until the next official U.S. Census 2010. Also, I have noted on the Dallas introduction that the city is now third and ninth in Texas and U.S. respectively as of the 2004 estimates. Until, the 2010 U.S. Census, Dallas will be the second largest city officially. Please note that the above annon user is a sockpuppet of Zereshk. & ndash; UH Collegian 19:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Not according to the US govt. Because the US govt uses the 2004 estimate figures, not the 2000 figures, as Z has pointed out. See List of United States cities by population.--Nightryder84 19:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The above new user is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Zereshk to get his ways. As of this edit, that user only has 3 edit contributions. That new user account was created today as a result of my accusations of the annon. Stop the San Antonio fanatic sockpuppets. UH Collegian 19:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The above user has a history of attacking Z, and is now attacking me, and I will take him to ArbCom if he doesnt shut up.--Nightryder84 19:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Shopping malls?

I'm curious why there's an entire section dedicated to "shopping malls" in Dallas? Is this really notable in an encyclopedia? There's shopping malls in virtually every major city or metro area in the U.S. (and abroad), so why is Dallas special? Also, where did the statistic of, "most shopping malls per capita in the U.S." come from?!?! Dr. Cash 05:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

First or Second in crime?

From the Crime section:

The crime rate in Dallas has been ranked second in the country for large cities from 1998 to 2003. Most of the cities nieghborhoods are relatively immune to the more violent crimes which tend to be concentrated within a few blocks of major expressways and around garden-style apartment complexes. Dallas' crime rate has been ranked 1st from 1998-2004. In '95, there were a record 280 murders. Now, Dallas usually averages 230-235 slayings a year.

This seems self-contradictory. More specific statistic, anyone? With a source? GTBacchus 07:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

People and culture

I'm new to Wikipedia, but would like to do some work polishing up this article. I agree with most of the comments on this page. Yes, the artice seems rather 'white' for a city that is barely majority caucasian right now and will probably be majority minority in the near future.

I also agree with much of the comments in the Featured artice candidate objections. People and Culture could use some clean-up.

I'm esp. confused by

Major U.S Networks (i.e CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX) have flagship transmitters in the city which helps the network broadcast well, especially if there is something wrong with electricity in the New York Area it can still be broadcast because of these transmitters. This was especially used during the 2003 North America blackout.

I know something about network broadcasting, but I don't have a clue what a 'flagship transmitter' is. Yes, networks have Owned-and-Operated stations, but those are the station's transmitters, not the networks; just like any other television broadcast transmitter. They don't help the network transmitt any better. Networks don't broadcast, stations do. Networks simply supply programming to stations via land-line or sattlite link. 1) I think this statement is flat out wrong. 2) Even if it is right, it's a trivial piece of information that isn't useful to the artice. The major networks do not have an importaint presence in Dallas other than their affiliate stations, and only some of them are owned-and-operated. I'd like to delete these two sentences, but since I'm so new to Wikipedia, I don't want to do it without some feedback from others.

I also think the artice to much emphasas on crime. 1) it's mentioned in the lead 'People and Society' paragraph and then is repeated in it's own seperate sub-heading. While the facts may be true, I don't think the average resident of Dallas considers crime to be that importaint a problem compared to other major American cities.

Comments would be appreciated. --Jleeper 20:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)