Jump to content

Talk:Cleveland

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nobody1231234 (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 14 June 2016 (→Nickname yet again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleCleveland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 29, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
October 18, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 17, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article Template:OhioSA

Userbox

This user lives in or hails from the Cleveland area.

There is a user box available for your use shown at right.

Add the following to your user page if you'd like to: 

{{user Cleveland, Ohio}}

Unreferenced

This article had its last FAR in 2007. It has several passages without (enough) references:

  • "History", paragraph 4.
  • "Climate", paragraph 1.
  • "Neighborhoods", paragraphs 1 and 2.
  • "Performing arts", paragraphs 3 and 5.
  • "Literature", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and even 3, if one gets strict enough.
  • "Cuisine", paragraph 1.
  • "Tourism", paragraph 3.
  • "Sports", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.
  • "Past teams", paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5.
  • "College sports", paragraph 1.
  • "Fire department", paragraph 1.
  • "Roads".

Toccata quarta (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

I can try do take care of this in increments:
  • "History", paragraph 4.

Done

  • "Climate", paragraph 1.

Done

  • "Neighborhoods", paragraphs 1 and 2.
  • "Performing arts", paragraphs 3 and 5.
  • "Literature", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and even 3, if one gets strict enough.
  • "Cuisine", paragraph 1.
  • "Tourism", paragraph 3.
  • "Sports", paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.
  • "Past teams", paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5.
  • "College sports", paragraph 1.
  • "Fire department", paragraph 1.
  • "Roads".

--Chimino (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC) "climate" paragraph one, added "very" before the word cold — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRanieriDC (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the article

I just came across this, it should be included somewhere in the intro of the article, Cleveland is a Global city. Cleveland is a global city, compare how Denver used the info.

Wickb55 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2015 (EST)


I read the article, fixed some text and improved the layout. I have a few comments:

1. "Public Square, less than a mile (2 km) inland, sits at an elevation of 650 feet (198 m), "

This is not correct. A mile measures 1.609 kilometers.

2. "winningest" ... is there really such a word?

3. "Cleveland State University hired a technology transfer officer to cultivate technology transfers from CSU research to marketable ideas and companies in the Cleveland area, and appointed a vice president for economic development."

What's the meaning of this sentence?

ICE77 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4/14/16 I would love to see an accurate picture painted about Cleveland. That it is now a dump, jobs are gone, Flats are gone, industry is gone, and downtown is on life support with a horrible prognosis. There is no revitalization, nor will there ever be. Crime is now almost as bad as Chicago. I will say that the people are pretty darn nice though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRanieriDC (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname yet again

There is a long established consensus not to list "Mistake by the Lake" as a nickname. One of the major arguments has always been that an often repeated pejorative does not make a term an accepted nickname. Are there current, reliable sources that contain the sentence (or its equivalent) "'Mistake by the Lake' is a nickname for Cleveland." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for reliable sources for the nickname, but from what I can tell in the archives there was not consensus. There were two people disagreeing with another person. The edits also show there is not consensus as the nickname has been added many times. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will find as you look for sources that the term was common in the 60s and 70s and is rarely used anymore except by sports writers. As far as consensus, the status quo is that the material was not in the article until an IP added it. It is not my recollection that past history simply reflects two people against one. Rather than adding it back, let's see if there is a new consensus to add the material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I went through recent edits and found FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS (I make six) that have reverted this edit. See [1] [2] [3] [4] and [5]. The editors adding it back are you and a single IP. Seems to me like a fairly well established current consensus.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'editors' who keep adding it are non-registered 'IP address' users. And Just an FYI (for those who don't bother to read the article but just like to start trouble) the 'Mistake By The Lake' moniker is mentioned in the article. Regardless, it is a pejorative, not an official nickname. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryecatcher773 - IP addresses have just as much say in the constuction of this article as registered users. Moreover, the list of nicknames is (1) not just positive nicknames and (2) not just official nicknames. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the recent edits Tom. In the archives, the discussion in 2009 is between you, Calamitybrook, and Beirne and no clear consensus was reached in those discussions. Discussions before that died at requests for reliable sources. Given that, I have taken up your request to provide reliable sources that (1) either use the term MbtL in reference to Cleveland or (2) specifically say Cleveland is referred to as the MbtL. While I did see a few sites referring to the stadium as the MbtL, the majority of hits were referring to Cleveland directly. Those referring to the stadium were typically a few pages of results deep into Google and tended to be older. The sources below are more recent than the 60s and 70s, showing the nickname MbtL is indeed still used as a nickname for Cleveland and not just by sports writers.

Based on the usage of historical nicknames in the introduction, "Mistake by the Lake" has been added back in that section, as it is referenced in the same piece as other historical nicknames (and is referred to as such) Nobody1231234 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that use the term to refer to Cleveland:

Sources that directly say Cleveland is called MbtL:

  • Orlando Sentinel (1989) - Quote: "National embarrassments hovered over Cleveland like vultures waiting their turn to swoop down on defenseless prey. Its reputation went from the official slogan of "The Greatest Location in the Nation," to the maligning phrase "The Mistake on the Lake.""
  • Forbes news (2010) - Quote: "The city has been dubbed with a less than endearing nickname: the Mistake by the Lake."
  • Fox News (2011) - Quote: "Well, it has been called "The Mistake by the Lake". That's mean. And now Cleveland has been given the most unfortunate distinction of being the most miserable city in America."
  • NBC News (2009) - Quote: "...showing the city is not really the "Mistake on the Lake"."
  • ESPN (n.d.) - Quote from the HTML meta page description: "Cleveland was once called the Mistake by the Lake and its sports teams have suffered plenty of mistakes through the years." Also title of article refers directly to Cleveland.
  • CNN (2013) - Quote: "And, as crime author Renner points out, the city was once famous for its burning river, once dubbed the "Mistake on the Lake" and branded with an outsized inferiority complex after decades of being the butt of national jokes."
  • USA Today (n.d.) - Quote: "Once saddled with the nickname "Mistake on the Lake," Cleveland has dedicated millions to reviving..."
    • Also photo of the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame is captioned "Cleveland has worked hard to prove the "Mistake on the Lake" nickname inaccurate."
  • Huffington Post/AP (2011) - Quote: "A comedian's sarcastic YouTube music videos trashing Cleveland have so unnerved tourism officials that they asked residents to fire back with videos of their own showing the city is not really the "Mistake on the Lake"."
  • Cleveland.com quoting famous basketball player Charles Barkley (2009) - Quote: "There is no reason to live in Cleveland, that's why the call it the mistake by the lake."
  • Cleveland.com quoting famous basketball player Charles Barkley again (2009) - Quote: "Sir Charles once again referred to our city as "Mistake by the Lake" (Original, Charles!)"
  • The Gazette (Colorado Springs) (2013) - Quote: "In 1969, the oil and waste on the surface of the city's Cuyahoga River caught fire, causing many to label Cleveland the "mistake on the lake"."
  • Notre Dame Magazine (2005-2006) - Quote: "But I will tell you that just about any ex-Clevelander you talk to will speak warmly about the city that those envious slanderers in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati term “The Mistake on the Lake.”"

Other supporting evidence:

Given the large number of mainstream news outlets using the term MbtL (or the less common "Mistake on the Lake"), it seems clear that this is a widely known and accepted nickname for Cleveland. Moreover, a number of mainstream news outlets and even a celebrity directly refer to Cleveland by this nickname and/or say that it is a nickname for the city itself (and not just, say, the stadium). In light of this, I propose we add the term Mistake by the Lake to the list of nicknames for Cleveland in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen, Your proposal is duly noted, however, as you obviously have failed to read my own entry in the argument, the MbtL moniker IS mentioned in the body of the article under the heading History. It isn't an official nickname but rather a pejorative term (I'd expect that someone who has taken the time to note a list of sources regarding said nickname to understand the difference... I stand corrected if in fact you don't understand the difference). Inasmuch, regardless of your proposal, It's already in the article and not going in the lead. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryecatcher773, I do understand the difference and have noted why it does not matter. Its pejorative nature is not reason for its exclusion. Wikipedia does not censor and articles are to remain neutral. Your opinion on the issue is duly noted, but you do not have final say on this issue. I see no logical reason, nor have you given one, as to why it cannot be mentioned in the lead instead of or in addition to the history section. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight, the phrase "mistake on the lake" originated in Cleveland's African-American community in 1964 as an expression of frustration with the city's response to civil rights concerns, particularly after the death of Reverend Bruce W. Klunder. It was a rejoinder to the city's slogan "the Best Location in the Nation." Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir:Your long list fails to make your point. While the articles use the phrase MOTL, they generally refer to it as a term that arose in the 60s and 70s and is no longer applicable. Examples from your list:

  • St. Louis Business Journal -- "No longer a 'mistake by the lake.'"
  • NY Times -- " No more yukking about the Mistake on the Lake."
  • Sports Illustrated -- "NO MISTAKE BY THE LAKE" (but it refers to the Indians, not the city)
  • Orlando Sentinel -- "Cleveland No Longer 'Mistake On The Lake'"
  • CNN -- " once dubbed the "Mistake on the Lake"
  • USA Today -- "Once saddled with the nickname "Mistake on the Lake"

Other examples are simply sports references or of dubious reliability (Charles Barkley, The Food Network, a comedian's joke). The preponderance of the evidence FROM YOUR SOURCES clearly demonstrate that calling MOTL a current nickname would be factually incorrect. MOTL is a term related to a fixed time in Cleveland's past and it is properly discussed in an appropriate section in the body of the article.

It would be a gross violation of NPOV to include MOTL in the lead without putting it in its proper context (i.e. when it arose and why it is no longer an accurate term). Whether it belongs in the lead is determined by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Based on the article as written, the historical use of this term in Cleveland's history is a minor part of the article.

I agree with Ryecatcher's other arguments as well. Bottom line, MOTL belongs in the article but not in the lead. This point was made in a 2011 debate that you may have missed when going through the archives. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First, the articles are not saying the nickname is no longer used. It is using the meaning of the nickname to demonstrate how Cleveland has improved. The articles still reinforce the existence of the nickname is in common usage. Moreover, by your logic, we'd need to remove other historical, obsolete nicknames like Sixth City. Second, it is NPOV to not include the nickname. We could add "Due to Lake Erie’s proximity to the city, the Cleveland area is sometimes locally referred to as "The North Coast" and pejoratively "The Mistake on the Lake". I am not making any claims to the quality of Cleveland (my hometown). But to exclude it because of its pejorative nature would be censoring and NPOV itself. Third, your claim that the nickname should not be included because it needs to be explained falls flat because all the other nicknames need it too. No one calls Cleveland "Metropolis of the Western Reserve" or "Sixth City" anymore and few know its context or history. In sum, your objections either do not hold water or imply that other nicknames need to be removed. We can hold a discussion about their removal if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing about context. "Mistake by/on the Lake" needs to be explained since it isn't a universally accepted or used nickname on top of being a pejorative (Cleveland is hardly unique having a negative nickname). The way it currently stands is sufficient. Bear in mind, anything in the lead must be in the body of the article as well since the lead is a summary of the entire article. Having mention of "Mistake by/on the Lake" needs explanation that really wouldn't be effective in the lead. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the body of the article and it is primarily used for Cleveland. Urban Dictionary and Google searches attest to that. As mentioned above, brief but sufficient context can be added as it has been for other terms like The North Coast. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be somewhat blunt, I feel that I am encountering a conflict of interest here. Understandably the people following this page have interest in Cleveland, as with the 3 of you, live there or hail from there. I question your neutrality, especially given your objections about the pejorative nature of the term despite the fact that Wikipedia doesn't censor. For note, I am from Cleveland as well.

I think an outside, impartial opinion may be in order here. Not that I need to ask, but are there any objections to a RfC? I can only see it as beneficial as it may allow me to see that others raise the same objections and I am in the minority, point out a more convincing reason for its exclusion, confirm my feelings of COI, or simply show my stance is not the minority. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a censorship issue -- as I've already said, the MbtL nickname is already in the article under the history section. This has been argued ad nauseum a while back and the consensus was mediated by an Admin. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not an issue of censorship, what's the reason for its exclusion from the lead? Tom mentioned some reasons above, but as I pointed out they are not sufficient or their adherence would result in the removal of other nicknames. I know this has been discussed in the past, but no one provided reliable sources explicitly stating MotL as a nickname of Cleveland. Given that I've provided those sources, I am suggesting we now include it in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I submit any RfC, let me see if a compromise will work. I would like to again suggest a wording "Due to Lake Erie’s proximity to the city, Cleveland has been pejoratively referred to as "The Mistake on the Lake" and the Cleveland area is sometimes locally referred to as "The North Coast." This would satisfy concerns of (1) context as it mentions the Lake, but does not go into depth of the history of the term, (2) NPOV as it describes the term as negative, (3) reliable sources from the list, and (4) historic vs. modern term by use of "has been". Is this any better? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- you don't need permission to request an RFC. However, in light of the fact that you are in such a distinct minority on the issue -- a minority that has persisted for years -- I don't see the purpose. This article has 213 watchers and only you and the previously mentioned (and now permanently blocked) Calamitybrook have bothered to contest the issue with any sort of prolonged argument. Your claim that there is some violation of Wikipedia's COI guidelines is more than blunt -- it is an uncivil charge and a violation of Assume Good Faith. You decided after less than 24 hours of discussion that everyone is dealing with you in bad faith.
You arguments that there is an attempt to censor something is not true. NOBODY has suggested that ALL MENTION of MOTL be eliminated. The issue that started this conversation is whether it should be included in the lead with no explanation and no context -- the way you have repeatedly reinserted it into the article. Your current suggestion ("Due to Lake Erie’s proximity to the city, Cleveland has been pejoratively referred to as "The Mistake on the Lake" and the Cleveland area is sometimes locally referred to as "The North Coast.") is an improvement, although I prefer your earlier suggestion for the removal of other nicknames -- I've lived in the Cleveland suburbs since 1980 and have never heard the two you referenced. Simply saying "has been" (it could mean last week or earlier today) does not provide proper context since it doesn't say when it was applied, why it was applied, and when and why did the reference become inappropriate and inaccurate. As far as your alleged sources, it is just plain bizarre that you claim when an article says "No longer" that it actually means still existing, especially since your suggested language acknowledges that it is no longer current.
The reason I don't find your suggestion acceptable goes to the fact that the article has 12 main sections and 29 subsections. You have failed to make the case why this reference to a former epithet applied to the city belongs in the lead -- the MOTL issue is a small part of an one 8 paragraph section. Why highlight this one part of Cleveland's history? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS The article lead is actually rather short for an article this long (three paragraphs with one only addressing nicknames). Any rewrite along the lines suggested might want to use this version [6] as a starting point. Despite the COI charges, I actually wrote all that "bad stuff" about the city. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
I apologize for not assuming good faith and you are right to call me out for it. Mea culpa.
The reason I bring up the censoring issue is because users now and in past discussions seem to have rejected its inclusion solely based on its pejorative nature. I am trying, perhaps too hard, to remind us that its pejorative nature is not sufficient grounds for its exclusion.
Let me try again to make my reasoning less bizarre: the sources are not saying the nickname is no longer in use or that it's obsolete. If that were the case, I'd totally be on board with you. Their use of the term shows it's still a used nickname, but their are claiming the moniker is inaccurate as, in their view, Cleveland is no longer a "Mistake". They are pointing out that Cleveland has improved, even saying that the nickname may be inaccurate, but they are not saying that the nickname is gone/unused/obsolete.
To your point about the removal of other nicknames: this is a viable option. If we choose not to include MotL because its allusion to only a short period of the city's history, then the same would apply for those other terms (which I too have not heard). We could just move all nicknames into their appropriate historical sections. I'd be okay with that compromise too. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'm okay with your PS. The lead is indeed short and your example edit would be a good compromise to the current discussion and expand the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem trimming the nickname list. I personally have found them to be problematic within the infobox and lead. There was a point when I edited the Akron, Ohio article and a local editor wanted to include every nickname ever used for the city, regardless of whether it was ever that common (including such well-known Akron nicknames as "Crossroads of the Deaf"...and yes, it had a reliable source) or still in any form of regular use. They really don't serve much in terms of helping the reader understand the topic better unless they're placed in context. Several of Cleveland's nicknames are historical too. For Cleveland, I've heard "Forest City" (which appears on a number of "Welcome to Cleveland" signs of course) used most frequently, though in all honesty, I don't see nicknames used all that often for Cleveland (beyond the generic "C-town" or "The 216"), certainly nothing close to the level of, say, "The Big Apple". In reality, the lead does need a re-write. This article is FA, but that was achieved in 2007 and standards have progressed since then. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with trimming the list. Who says "C-Town" other than Jim Rome and his clones? And wasn't "the Cleve" a fictitious nickname on the TV show 30 Rock? Piriczki (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mistake" is a derisive term generally used by out-of-market media and has no place in a list of Cleveland nicknames. "C-Town" may have started w/ Jim Rome and his radio audience, but there are other current examples of its use.[7][8][9] "The Cleve" may be a bit of a stretch; Piriczki is right that it originated w/ the 30 Rock episode, though it does come up now and again w/o reference to that show.[10] "North Coast" can go as it extends beyond Cleveland to the larger region. As for the others, either move them to the infobox, as is the practice for nearly all other articles on U.S. cities, or leave them in the lead. Levdr1lp / talk 20:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be in the body of the article as well, not just the infobox or lead. The lead should never have information that isn't found anywhere else in the article, especially in a Featured Article like this one. Featured articles that have been promoted more recently than this one have the nickname(s) covered somewhere in the article, such as the history or demographics sections. I even had to make sure it was part of the Kent, Ohio article when I took that through FAR in 2010 (in that article, it's mentioned in the history section). New York City has an entire article on the various nicknames...not saying we need that for Cleveland, but to show that the nicknames are actually explained, not just listed in the lead. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate, the pejorative or "derisive" nature of the term is not at issue here. See WP:NPOV. I second JonRidinger's sentiments as well; a section in the body for nicknames might be more appropriate anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JonR- The lead summarizes the body, so clearly the nickname content -- w/ added detail -- should be found in the body as well. My point above is that the better known nicknames should be summarized in either the infobox or the lead (I wasn't addressing the body).
Evergreen- Derisive terms like "Mistake" are not considered nicknames by convention. Cleveland is not the only place w/ a derisive term applied by outsiders, and yet I can't imagine the Wikipedia community ever using something like "Armpit of America" for New Jersey or "Detroilet" for the Motor City. If anything, elevating such terms to nickname-status itself violates WP:NPOV. See WP:WEIGHT. "Mistake" is rightly listed in the history section (I argued against others who wanted it eliminated from the article entirely). That's compromise enough. Levdr1lp / talk 01:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna need some citation for that claim that derisive terms are not nicknames. Tricky Dick was derisive but it was certainly a nickname. Also, your comparisons don't work well as those aren't commonly used terms by media or other reliable sources whereas MotL is. That said, I still think at this point we should either expand the lead like Tom showed in a past version, or remove the nicknames altogether from the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Derisive terms for cities or other populated places are generally not considered nicknames on Wikipedia by convention. In other words, consensus has determined over time that such terms should not be treated as "nicknames". If anything, it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise. As for "Armpit", there are plenty of reliable sources online using the term to describe either the Garden State or the city of Newark. "Detroilet" may have less coverage, but that's not really the point. Highlighting derisive terms in the lead or infobox works against WP:NPOV. And I don't follow your comparison to Richard Nixon. This discussion is on nicknames for cities/populated places, not politicians/people (though I think it's worth noting that "Tricky Dick" is not found in the Nixon infobox, Nixon lead, or anywhere else in the Nixon article). Levdr1lp / talk 21:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen: if you're going to cite WP policy then the Tricky Dick reference is a bit moot in this argument seeing as it A) isn't mentioned in the lead of the Richard M. Nixon article (and in fact isn't mentioned in that particular article at all for that matter) and B) Wikipedia isn't concerned with the contemporary media (perhaps you ought to re-read WP:NOT more closely). Again, the Mistake by/on the Lake' moniker is listed in the body of the article already. You already missed out on this exact same battle a year or so back , which was mediated by a neutral third-party Admin. I understand what you're getting at, but you're making an argument that resembles a legal case and this one has already been previously ruled on. At this point, you're coming accross as someone who is arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'd hope you'd be above that.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. So let's move on to the other suggestions proposed: (1) expanding the lead or (2) removing the nicknames paragraph. Shall I make a new section on the talk page? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the article cleveland needs to have the nicknames area. and "mistake on the lake" needs to be in there because that is a nickname of cleveland --used less often lately than back when the river used to catch fire from all the pollution floating on it, but still the established and historical nickname. just because a nickname is not positive, we remove it? what, is WP an arm of the greater cleveland tourism council? PS: i use to live in cleveland --not a cleve-hater. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
detroit is the motor city. new york is the big apple. cleveland is the mistake on the lake. it can't be denied. and in the few years my family lived there and a sibling attended c.i.a., nobody heard the place called "the forest city" --nope. it was always mistake on the lake. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion and experience doesn't change the longstanding consensus reflected in the above discussion. You need to change that consensus before adding your material back in the article lede. You seem to miss the point that reference to Mistake IS INCLUDED elsewhere in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "mistake on the lake" originated in Cleveland's African-American community in 1964 as an expression of frustration with the city's inadequate response to civil rights concerns, particularly following the death of Reverend Bruce W. Klunder. It was a rejoinder to the city's slogan "the Best Location in the Nation." At least get your facts straight. Piriczki (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

never heard of that one. got a source? is it OR? a source would be good. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson, Lois. "The Mistake on the Lake?" Call and Post May 2, 1964: 3B
  • "Rights Law Praised at Holmes Luncheon" The Plain Dealer July 26, 1964: 4
  • Ford, Jean. "Rev. Bruce Klunder" Ebony August 1964: 13
  • Sanders, Charles. "Black Power at the Polls" Ebony January 1968: 23
  • Stokes, Carl. "My First Year in Office" Ebony January 1969: 116

Ignoring the serious social and civil rights issues from which the slogan arose and likening it to unsuccessful sports teams seems insensitive if not ignorant. Piriczki (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@north shoreman: WHAT consensus? is there an archive link to some discussion with lots of KEEP and DON'T KEEP kind of opinions? was it from a lot of editors or just a handful like was mentioned near the top of this section? since city nicknames are in the lede, i added with sources the one actual well-known nickname. some in the lede weren't used much after, say, 1880. did anyone in the 20th century call cleveland the 'metropolis of the western reserve'? really? since nicks were in the lede, i put in the famous one. i did at one point move nicks to their own section of of the lede but someone reverted that. with a username like 'north shoreman' and with a cleveland nickname (in the lede even) being 'the north shore' i have to wonder if there's some POV at work here when you delete something embarrassing about cleveland. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@piriczki: yeah for sources! maybe adjust the wording about MOTL's origin? good luck with it surviving the "cleveland tourism board" relentlessly removing the entire phrase. hmmmm. as i look, i see none of your sources seem to be check-able on the web. i'd try to find something readily verifiable just to satisfy the higher standard that seem to be getting applied to the phrase 'mistake on the lake'. cheers Cramyourspam (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one that wants to change a long time stable article. You need to establish a consensus to change it since you have been reverted by two different editors and a third disagrees with the accuracy of your claims. As has happened in the past (both above and the time before that when there was a lot of discussion), this is once again one editor against everybody else -- a handful against is better than one editor for. If you are truly interested in constructive editing and not just edit warring and personal attacks (i.e."cleveland tourism board"), quit reverting and wait for people to agree with you and develope a consensus to add the material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS This is what the article currently says about Mistake (in the body of the article not the lede):
Suburbanization changed the city in the late 1960s and 1970s, when financial difficulties and a notorious 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga River challenged the city. This, along with the city's struggling professional sports teams, drew negative national press. As a result, Cleveland was often derided as "The Mistake on the Lake".
You need to explain why something more is needed, clarify why it should be added to the lede ahead of so many other topics in the article not in the lede, and gain consensus to make the changes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trim lead or expand?

Moving on to get some consensus built. In previous sections on this talk page two potential avenues have been brought up: (1) trimming the nicknames from the lead and placing them solely in the body of the article and (2) expanding the lead per North Shoreman's comment above. These are not mutually exclusive. For note, the second avenue arises from the fact that the lead is quite short compared to others articles of this length. Any suggestions/opinions? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEADLENGTH. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is fine as is. Regardless of recent debates, it is still listed as a 'feature article' and there are examples for precedent found in leads for other major American cities (e.g. Chicago, Philly and NYC) This article's lead is both similar in length and contains much of the same info (including nicknames). There are plenty of other tasks in articles under the scope of WikiProject Cleveland that are in great need of the time and energy. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what is done with the lead, the nicknames must be placed in the body of the article somewhere. That isn't an optional thing. The lead is a summary of the article, so shouldn't have any unique information. Most leads don't even need to have citations unless they contain actual quotes or highly controversial statements. As it currently stands, the lead needs expanded to be a better summary of the article. It mentions nothing on demographics, education, sports, media, government, or transportation, and very little history or culture. If this went through FAC today, that would be something reviewers would look for and want.
Be careful with "the article is featured". Many larger city articles have been FA for some time, but achieved that several years ago. This article was first listed as FA in 2005 and hasn't had a FAR since 2007 despite quite a few changes. Articles don't get demoted without a FAR, but the absence of any since 2007 shouldn't be automatically interpreted as the article is fine as is. Standards for FA have changed quite a bit since then and it's unlikely this article would remain FA if it had a FAR again or went through FAC now as the article appears now. The fact that the nicknames are currently mentioned only in the lead is just one testament to how things have changed since this achieved FA status almost 9 years ago. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you Jon. Those other articles that I mentioned also include nicknames, albeit a very trim list. And the point I am making regarding 'FA" status is that the Cleveland article is on the list and was deemed so when the lead was essentially the same as it is now (there have been polishes here and there). This whole arguemt is stemming from whetehr to include MotL in the official nickname list. That is no reason to reinvent the wheel. There could be a section on nicknames, but that doesn't mean that 'Forest City' should be left out of the lead -- any more than Windy City or City of Brotherly Love, etc. should be left out of their respective articles.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be expanded to summarize every major aspect of the article. Accordingly, everything in the lead should, ideally, be found in the body. That said, there are plenty of other things that could be improved upon in this and other Cleveland articles, and I don't see why the lead must be dealt with right now. As Ryecatcher points out, this ongoing discussion was never really about the lead in general, or even how to handle the placement of nicknames. It was about the term "Mistake on the Lake", whether it's a city nickname (it's not), and where to place it in the article (the history section seems most appropriate). This "new" discussion feels somewhat like somewhat of workaround -- Evergreen can't get MotL into the lead, so Evergreen proposes eliminating nicknames from the lead entirely. Our time is limited, and I would prefer we stop wasting it on this nonstarter. Levdr1lp / talk 20:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My intent here is not for a workaround. It's to address points brought up in previous discussions that I felt needed their own discussion. I've given up on the MotL. To answer your other question, there isn't a rush, but we can at least talk about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Levdr1lp / talk 22:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSU/Cleveland

I know OSU is based in Columbus, but when talking about sports in Cleveland, it's worth a couple of sentences to point out that Cleveland is a huge Buckeye town (and after Columbus, the biggest Buckeye town there is). I made sure to add 3 different references (a national one from NBC Sports, a local one from Cleveland Scene, and an anecdotal one from OSU itself) to point out Cleveland's fandom for the football team. I also made sure to clearly point out that there is no college football team in the city itself. In an article about Cleveland sports, it's worth a mention to point out that the city (as a whole) is widely considered to be Buckeye Country. It's like the Green Bay Packers in Milwaukee. Milwaukee itself doesn't have a team, but it's considered Packer Country (in fact, the NFL considers Milwaukee as a primary Packer market TV wise, and the Packer's flagship radio station is Milwaukee based WTMJ 620). Very similar situation here. I'd like to hear from others on this issue, to get a feel for the mood on the street as it were. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. This article is on Cleveland. Ohio State has no direct connection to this city, aside from existing within the same state. Notre Dame, Michigan, and the Steelers also have significant followings in the Cleveland area -- why not devote a section to those fan bases? Levdr1lp / talk 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the main issue, I don't see what is so objectionable about mentioning that Cleveland is nationally recognized as having a large fanbase of the Buckeyes. The NBC Sports article I provided specifically calls Cleveland a "hotbed" for OSU football (as does the Cleveland Scene article). Now I didn't use the term hotbed, out of concern for keeping a formal tone, and to not conflict with WP:NPOV. Another thing is that the Cleveland Plain Dealer provides extensive Buckeye coverage during the season, including having 3 beat reporters based in Columbus to cover the football team (and to a lesser extent the basketball team). If there wasn't the interest, the paper wouldn't devote the resources to it. In fact every Sunday, they have a special section called "Buckeye Extra" that goes in depth about the team. The OSU football fanbase in Cleveland is large enough, and notable enough to have a sentence or two written about it. It's very short sighted to say that OSU has no direct connection to the city of Cleveland. Just because the university isn't physically based in Cleveland, doesn't mean that there's a disconnect. How am I wrong in merely wanting to point out that Cleveland has a large following of Ohio State football, especially when it's nationally recognized with references to point it out? Does the sentence "While the city itself doesn't have a major college football team, Cleveland is nationally known as having a large following for Ohio State football." really compromise the integrity of the article? It's a fact that can be backed up by references. I really don't understand where the major problem is. Regarding WP:BRD, I can see that if I were going to make huge wholesale changes or making controversial claims, but merely including a referenced sentence about Cleveland's documented large Buckeye fan base? I think that's kinda like shooting flies with an elephant gun. I really would like a third opinion here, just so there's not simply the two of us going round and round. We think we are right and the other guy is wrong, if some fresh blood says one way or the other, I can live with it. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one really. OSU definitely has a large following in Cleveland and in the region (all over the state really) and gets as much coverage as the pro teams in the Cleveland media, but it's not a Cleveland team as Lev points out. I think it can be mentioned on the grounds that Ohio State has played games in Cleveland (most recent was 2009, a game I was at) and seems to do so somewhat regularly. The interesting thing about OSU playing games in Cleveland, is they have often been the "visiting" team. The 2009 game was a Toledo "home" game (though Cleveland Browns Stadium was entirely scarlet) and the 1991 game against Northwestern was also a Northwestern "home" game. The fact that there are reliable sources which mention Ohio State's large following in Cleveland make it a valid point. Ohio State is a documented part of the Cleveland sports scene even if the Buckeyes aren't based in Cleveland. Notre Dame, Michigan, and the Steelers definitely have large followings in the area, but none have any specific and regular coverage in Cleveland media like Ohio State does. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason OSU is the "away" team is quite honestly a money issue. The home team gets the bigger share of the gate receipts and what not. These smaller schools (1991 NW was pretty much a Big 10 doormat) willingly take these games (and the ensuing on-field slaughter) for the paycheck. And the road team share isn't too shabby, which is why OSU does these periodic "road games" (knowing full well Cleveland is pretty much a "home away from home" for them). Vjmlhds (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry, I know why OSU is usually the "road" team in Cleveland and why teams agree to play there. It's a testament to Cleveland having strong OSU support. :) --JonRidinger (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be national recognition on the strength of the Ohio State following in Cleveland, but I don't see any evidence of this in the sources provided by Vjm:
  1. a local readers poll from Scene;
  2. a single photo of OSU alums in Cleveland (there are similar photos from countless other cities);
  3. and a blog post from a site w/ no apparent editorial oversight (CollegeFootballTalk.com is not NBC Sports).
BTW, Vjm -- an Ohio State fan -- has already edited the Milwaukee article, apparently to reinforce his own position here. That said, I take JonR's point about OSU coverage in local Cleveland media. I just think this issue creates something of a slippery slope. Where does it end? Both Notre Dame and Michigan have radio affiliates in the Cleveland radio market. At what point does an outside team have a sufficient following to be included in this article? And are there any other similar examples on Wikipedia someone could point to? There are undoubtedly countless New York Yankees fans in Newark, New Jersey, a city much closer to the Yankees than Cleveland to OSU, and yet I don't find any information on that club in the appropriate section of the Newark article. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline does not mention teams outside cities at all. Levdr1lp / talk 03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Packers case in Milwaukee is similar to Ohio State's in Cleveland. For years, the Packers played at least one game in Milwaukee at County Stadium, so they were, and continue to be, a large part of the Milwaukee sports scene, (even if only on a historic basis) though obviously they still have a huge following in Milwaukee. The same is true for Ohio State that isn't true for Michigan and Notre Dame: neither of those schools, to my knowledge, has scheduled a football game in Cleveland. The only time I can remember Michigan playing any sport in Cleveland was an ice hockey game at Progressive Field back in 2011 against Ohio State. If there weren't these periodic games played in Cleveland and the coverage on Cleveland media of Ohio State (on equal footing with the Browns, Cavs, and Indians, and more than even Cleveland State), I probably wouldn't think it was a good idea. In general, no, we keep to the teams that are local within that city. For instance, I didn't mention the Indians, Buckeyes, etc. on the Kent, Ohio article sports section, but I did mention that the Browns held training camp there in the late 70s and early 80s. For this instance, obviously there shouldn't be a large section about OSU, but a brief mention doesn't appear to be out of line based on the media coverage (particularly the Plain Dealer, which has its own Ohio State section, while CSU, Akron, and KSU are all lumped into their general "College" tab) and OSU actually playing in Cleveland periodically against non-Cleveland teams (as opposed to Cincinnati where they have always played the Bearcats). Sports sections should cover what people can actually see live and in person in that city. While obviously not every year, they can see Ohio State play in Cleveland every so often (having the largest OSU alumni chapter outside of Columbus doesn't hurt). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call five times over a seventy year stretch "every so often". OSU games in Cleveland (only twice since 1991) are not a regular occurrence. And Plenty of media outlets cover teams outside their primary city. To extend my previous example, NJ.com/Sports, which happens to be owned by Cleveland.com's same parent co., covers both New York and Philadelphia teams. Neither are represented in the Newark article. Moreover, the presence of OSU coverage at Cleveland.com is probably more indicative of there being no major college football program in Cleveland (OSU is still, geographically, the closest major program), rather than reflective of the strength of Cleveland's OSU fan base. And I still see no evidence to support the claim that Cleveland OSU fans are so passionate/devoted that they are "nationally recognized". As for Milwaukee, my point is that the Milwaukee WP community itself has not found it necessary to note the city's Packer fan base. Levdr1lp / talk 06:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lev, I see your point but I also see why the Buckeyes are mentioned -- and for the sake of argument, KNR is the designated Cleveland affiliate in the Buckeyes radio network, while the Steelers and TSUN do not have such representation in the city -- yes, ND is an exception in that case, but the Domers, given the Catholic Church ties, have a radio station affiliate in every major market in the US (as well as countless secondary and tertiary markets) so that's not really an argument either. Cleveland (and more salient to the issue) the HS footballl programs in Cleveland have historically a lot more ties to Cleveland and NE Ohio than any other school out there. Yes, there are some good players from the 216 that end up in South Bend and Ann Arbor, but let's be honest: Glenville HS would arguably not even be on the CFB map if not for the exposure it got from OSU. I understand you may very well not be a Buckeye grad or fan, but while the school is in Columbus, you have to be honest with your assessment of OSU's presence in NE Ohio.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rye, I am being honest in my assessment, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't imply otherwise. To reiterate, my honest assement is this: Ohio State has no place in this article, because Ohio State has no direct connection to this city. JonR more convincingly argues for OSU content in FirstEnergy Stadium (Cleveland), not here. Your own point about Cleveland high schools feeding into Ohio State, particularly Glenville, is more relevant to those high schools, not the city itself. And, yes, Michigan does have an affiliate in Cleveland – WHKW. Apparently you missed my first link to the UM radio affiliate list. Incidentally, WHKW's nighttime signal is *much* stronger than WKNR's. Levdr1lp / talk 08:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, collegefootballtalk.com originally began as an independent site in 2004, but has since been absorbed into the NBC Sports website. This isn't like it's just some guy in his basement in his underwear doing a blog. NBC Sports thought this site had enough gravitas to put their name to it. Second, so what if I edited the Milwaukee article? I didn't put anything in there wasn't factual, and that couldn't be backed up by references. So only people from Milwaukee can edit the article? Thirdly, regarding radio affiliates - yes, UM and ND have Cleveland affiliates, but here's the big difference - WKNR trips all over themselves promoting that they're the home of the Buckeyes, airing every single game with extensive local pre and postgame shows while Michigan games on WHKW and ND games on WTAM often get preempted due to other programming (WHKW also airs Bowling Green football, which get priority, while WTAM is the flagship of the Tribe and Cavs, so when there's a conflict Notre Dame loses out). You have to dig and look it up to find Cleveland's UM and ND affiliates, while the OSU affiliate slaps you in the face promoting the Buckeyes. Nobody looking objectively can compare the Cleveland fandom for and coverage of OSU and equate it to any support given to UM or ND. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never meant to imply that Ohio State plays frequently in Cleveland, but it does happen every so often. And no, I'm not arguing for more info in the FirstEnergy Stadium article since Ohio State has only played there once (and it should already be in there in other uses).
As for why Cleveland.com has coverage, it's anyone's guess as to why, but they wouldn't cover them if they didn't have a market for it (the Beacon Journal also has a dedicated OSU section as do other local news sources). As I mentioned, the Cleveland chapter of the OSU Alumni Association is the largest chapter outside Columbus, so there are tons of alumni in the region, not to mention casual Buckeye fans.
Another thing to bear in mind is that Cleveland and Columbus are different media markets, yet Ohio State still gets significant coverage in Cleveland. Major college or not, they get significantly more coverage than Michigan and Notre Dame and the other Division I schools (CSU, KSU, Akron) that are actually within the Cleveland media market. Newark is part of the New York City media market, so the New York teams getting coverage in local media is expected and not significant. But do the Yankees, Mets, Giants, or Jets ever do games in Newark? Not that I'm aware of. Mentioning that Ohio State periodically plays in Cleveland is not a problem for the topic of the section, nor is mentioning the large following Ohio State has in Cleveland as part of that (that's why they and opposing teams agree to come to Cleveland every so often). Again, because Ohio State has (and most likely will again) had actual games in Cleveland (a physical presence) and does somewhat regularly, a mention is not out of line like it would be, for say, the Akron article or the Toledo article. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lev, if you were being honest in your assessment, then you'd also take into account that if OSU has 'no direct connection to the city' then why is there a beat writer assigned to them by the PD (his name is Doug Lesmerises in case you've never read his column) while the Wolverines (or any other college team in Ohio or otherwise) do not?... and just an FYI, the WHK affiliate BS never existed when I was growing up in Greater Cleveland, which just goes to show you how much money and CFB in the digital age media has come into play over recent decades. Bottom line: no one here is making a case for dedicating an entire paragraph to the Buckeyes, but if you want to really keep it real, well I'm going to come out and say it: you are either completely delusional (or are just showing an anti-OSU bias) if you don't see why the Buckeyes warrant at least a mere sentence mentioning their very LARGE Cleveland fanbase -- it's the largest metro area in the state (and it is a State University that receives funds from Cuyahoga County taxpayers after all, while Michigan and ND do not). And BTW, this argument is getting as silly as the 'Mistake on the Lake' argument. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references supporting this content are very weak. One merely states the obvious that "as long as the Browns keep losing, there's only one wining football team in Ohio that Clevelanders root for." The next is simply a photo of a couple who were "Born and raised in Ohio!!" and apparently had their wedding pictures taken downtown. The last details how the Buckeyes played in Cleveland five times (three of which were 70 years ago when a number of colleges played games at Cleveland Stadium) and quotes Ohio State's athletic director saying "I do not see an opportunity in the near future" for games in Cleveland. The idea that Ohio residents, wherever in Ohio they happen to live, would support Ohio State seems obvious and not particularly noteworthy. The fact that the largest metro area in Ohio would contain a large number of Ohio State alumni/fans/recruits again seems obvious. The fact that the support, as described in the article, is limited to football perhaps says more about support for football in general in Northeast Ohio than for Ohio State in particular. Piriczki (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way endorsing the prose in its current state -- and I agree, there are sources appearing suspect, and it is the University's athletics overall, not the football program alone that should be mentioned -- but a re-worked sentence about the school's fanbase in Cleveland should be mentioned. In case there is anymore question about media coverage and interest in the area, check out the breaking news today on Cleveland.com (it involves the recruitment decision of Raekwon McMillan choosing Ohio State).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there a couple problems with the wording. First, to say Cleveland is "nationally known for its support" is a stretch. Being recognized by one national writer, who professes to be "a lifelong Browns fan," is a far cry from being nationally known. Also, the team "playing occasional games in Cleveland" is not really supported by three games in 1942–44 and only two in the years since. It's more like a rare occurrence.
The second reference (the wedding photo) is not only not a reliable source, it's not a reference at all and doesn't belong in a featured article. Piriczki (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I've been sick the last few days, so I apologize for taking a while to reply...
First and foremost, Rye, I do not appreciate being labelled "delusional". Keep it civil, and focus on content WP:PERSONAL. As for this so-called "anti-OSU bias", I think a much more convincing case could be made for a pro-OSU bias -- both from yourself, and from Vjm (you have both declared yourselves Buckeye fans on your respective user pages). I also don't see how my point about WHKW's coverage of Michigan games is "BS"; it was simply a statement of fact. I have no doubt that the OSU fan base in Greater Cleveland is very strong; I still don't see, in my honest assessment, how that has anything to do w/ Cleveland itself. I'm sure plenty of local media outlets have reporters assigned to, or even reporting from, the Ohio Statehouse. Does that mean we should cover Ohio's state politics in the Cleveland article? Prickzi is right in that the sources provided by Vjmlhds do not nearly support the claim that there is a "nationally recognized" OSU fan base in Cleveland. The photo and readers-poll refs are irrelevant in this context. The blog post is suspect, in my view, because the writers of CollegeFootballTalk.com admit they "... don't have editors... don't always adhere to pure journalistic standards". CFT may be hosted by the NBC Sports website, but there's nothing to clarify what, if any, editorial relationship exists between the two. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Levdr1lp / talk 23:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lev, I'm done arguing with you and I am keeping it civil -- delusional isn't a 4-letter word, or an insult, it's a condition. Here are the facts:

  • The Plain Dealer has a beat writer for the Buckeyes. They don't have one for any other college team (including Michigan or ND).
  • Cleveland's largest AM Sports station, WKNR (which is the 50,000 watt co-flagship station for the Browns), is the Cleveland radio affiliate for the Buckeyes. Not the Wolverines or the Irish.
  • Channel 5 and Channel 3 (that would be the ABC and NBC affiliates in Cleveland) cover the Buckeyes on their websites and their newscasts -- again, not ND or Michigan.

You can argue whatever you want, and I'm not crediting any silly blogs or opinionated websites, I'm going by the media presence the team has in Cleveland. Buckeyes athletics warrant mention in the Cleveland article under the subsection 'College Sports' . Doesn't need to be a paragraph, and certainly not a 'yay team' tone, but a mention is warranted nonetheless. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rye, I'm pretty sure "delusional" is a personal attack -- you're commenting on the editor, not his position. Might want to brush up on those policies and guidelines. Or not, I don't really care. Because if you continue to casually throw around insults, sooner or later you'll come to regret it. Not because of me, but because this community does not and will not tolerate petty, uncivil, ad hominem attacks. I am not "deluded" -- I simply differ in how I see things in this particular instance. I've offered nothing but facts to support my position, and challenged the positions of others. Claiming Cincinnati is north of Cleveland -- that's delusional. Observing that an editor who admits to being a fan of a particular college sports team just might be allowing his own personal bias to interfere w/ his thought process here -- that's perceptive. Newsflash, Rye: I'm not always going to agree with you. Get over it.
BTW, how are those reliable sources demonstrating Ohio State's notably strong fan base in Cleveland coming (you know, facts to support your position)? I'm still waiting for something other than WP:ORIGINAL to back these largely unsupported claims.
As for the actual content of this ongoing discussion, here's a few thoughts. First, do you really think I'm equating the OSU fan base in Cleveland to Michigan or ND's? I've never said Michigan or ND = Ohio State. Rather, my point has been that none of those teams have any direct connection to Cleveland itself -- i.e., none of the three lie within the city proper, nor are directly affiliated with the city in any way. That's true for all three. You do realize it's possible to compare A to B without saying A and B are identical, don't you? So Ohio State has media coverage in Cleveland. So what. So do Michigan and ND. You can disagree about the extent of coverage, but what you cannot disagree about is the fact coverage for other non-OSU teams, which also happen to be based hours away from Cleveland, exists. I'm also not sure what "largest AM sports station" means, or if that's even relevant. WKNR powers down to 4,700 watts at night -- unlike WTAM, a clear-channel blowtorch which happens to be the ND affiliate. The only other AM sports station in town is WKNR's lowly daytimer sister, WWGK. So, wait, you're telling me that WKNR is the largest AM sports station in this market? Out of three whole stations? One of which happens to be its Radio-Siberia sister? Wow. ... I stand by my position. Ohio State has no place in this article. I also understand that a single editor's reasoned views do not dictate consensus. Maybe you've forgotten that. Levdr1lp / talk 08:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you're the type that likes to hear his own voice since you really don't seem to pay any attention to what anyone else tries to explain to you (you pretty welll ignored two-thirs of my media argument by focusing on the radio)... and thank you for educating me on how logic works. I did score relatively decent on the LSATs though so I think I've got that down pat already. And for the record, before you start pointing fingers at personal attacks, you should check yourself first seeing as you do have a habit of taking a condescending tone towards those who disagree with you ... it is kind of ironic BTW that you are a self-styled Wikipoliceman who likes to point out convention and policy while flying the userbox proclaiming that you DGAF. ;-)

But, I digress. I realize that Cleveland's sports radio isn't anywhere near the volume of what we have here in Chicago, I'll grant you that. But the point I was making (which you missed completely) about WKNR was (regardless of what they power down to when there isn't anything else on the air worth broadcasting) is ESPNs radio affiliate in Cleveland (ESPN! The sportsworld's equivalent of the Pentagon), and they are the Browns co-flagship station (and yes, I know about 92.3 on the FM dial as I listen to the Browns on my 92.3 phone app...) as well as the Buckeyes affiliate (and by the way, WTAM as 3-WE was before it, may be the 50,000 watt 'monster on the lake' but while it carries the Tribe, it is a NEWS station not a SPORTS station, so all night long a whole lot of Art Bell, Mike Trivisonno, and a plethora of right-wing windbags and can be heard accross 38 states and half of Canada.... yay!)

Oddly, you have completely overlooked the Plain Dealer in my assertions. Tell you what though, it's 3:49PM here in Chicago, and if you go to Cleveland.com at this precise moment (that would be the online version of the PD and Sun newspapers two papers that I used to deliver as a teenager back in the 80s) you can see the window in the right corner that leads with the Buckeyes, and also has breaking news on Buckeyes recruitment)... if you read further, you'll find their beat writer, Doug Lesmerises too (seriously, I didn't just make that name up). You'll also find teh Buckeyes in the drop down menu under the heading 'SPORTS'... along with the Browns, Cavs, Tribe, Gladiators, Monsters, etc.

There is a large body of evidence supporting my claim (TV, Radio and print journalism). The Buckeyes get more Cleveland media coverage than any other college team out there. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who is "done arguing", you spend a fair amount of time arguing. Pot, meet kettle. As I have said repeatedly, there is undoubtedly a strong OSU following in the the Cleveland market. I still don't see what that has to do w/ the city itself. So far Vjm has provided the only sources on the OSU-Cleveland claim, and as Piriczki points out, they don't nearly support that claim. We're all still waiting on something substantive (i.e., verifiable), aside from original research -- that includes any of you own observations, like those from Cleveland.com or other area media outlets. BTW, I'm glad you don't feel the need to throw around your actual LSAT score to compensate for any insecurities you may have about comprehending basic site policy. :)
As for WP:DGAF, you clearly don't grasp the relative elasticity of the concept. For example, I DGAF that another editor (you) opposes my position. I DGAF that you have trouble accepting different views in this forum. I wouldn't care if there were fifty other opposing editors -- talk pages are for discussing differing views, and consensus is not unanimity. There is value in opposing views, whether your see it or not. I still think Ohio State doesn't belong in this article, and I'm not changing my position unless and until someone provides something reliable in print or online (or in some other form) to change my current honest assessment. And that's okay. Levdr1lp / talk 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really wasn't looking to stir up a hornet's nest here...honest I wasn't. Cleveland's OSU fan base is one of those intangible things that makes Cleveland...well, Cleveland. So I thought a couple of sentences about it would add to the article to give people a feel about the sports scene in the city. I thought I had my bases covered, I made sure to have references to quell any qualms about WP:OR or WP:V. I made sure to word the article in such a way to keep in line with WP:NPOV, and I figured all was good. Now Levdr and I disagree about this, but he's entitled to his opinion. Rye and I do agree on the article, but (as I have learned the hard way) any time a sentence that begins with "You are a..." or "You're..." appears on a talk page, it raises red flags with Wiki top men, so that's not good either. So long story short, Levdr - we're just gonna agree to disagree here. And Rye - thanks for agreeing with me on the article, but ease up on Levdr. Because potentially dealing with an admin over WP:Personal ain't fun and isn't worth the hassle...trust me. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Culture/Film & Television

Hi all. User:Vjmlhds added notation regarding Dr. Oz to this section, which, in my opinion really doesn't belong there, since his show has nothing to do with Cleveland. While Dr. Oz should definitely be added (if he isn't already there) to the list of famous people from Cleveland, the Culture section is about the medium, in this case Film & TV. While Drew Carey's sit-com was set in Cleveland, and definitely should be mentioned, merely mentioning folks from Cleveland who happen to be on tv is not about the culture of Cleveland. I've removed the references in the section which refer to people, not to shows. Onel5969 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleveland has always been a town that is proud of native sons and daughters who make it big. Mentioning notable people from the area who achieved national fame is an acceptable part of the section, as part of what makes Cleveland Cleveland is the people who hail from here. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is why there is a section on city pages, called notable people. To include them here is inappropriate and, if they are on the notable people page, somewhat redundant.Onel5969 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare it to the rest of the article, the film and television section has an excessive amount of detail. I think the article would be much more readable if the section was pruned substantially, with the detailed information moved to Media of Cleveland or another appropriate target. - Eureka Lott 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it...the more I'm starting to agree with Onel5969. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original suggestion. Only media that actually pertains to Cleveland should stay in this article. There is no need to mention people from Cleveland who are popular in media as part of the culture section, as they are not a major, exlusive part of the Cleveland culture. Scarlettail (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree w/ EurekaLott; most of the detail should be moved to another target. However, Media in Cleveland should probably continue to be reserved for local media based out of Cleveland (broadcast radio & TV outlets, print & online publications, etc.), rather than fictional works set or produced in Cleveland (TV shows, films, literature, etc.). I would prefer Culture of Cleveland as a target, using the existing Culture of Detroit article or any similar articles as guides. If/when necessary, additional targets could be created stemming from the parent Culture article: Film of Cleveland, Music of Cleveland, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 00:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about Media of Cleveland. Another option would be to start a list article. There are plenty of examples in categories like Category:Lists of films by setting and Category:Lists of films shot in the United States. - Eureka Lott 12:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list article is certainly another possibility, though I think it might be redundant to the existing Cleveland film categories: Category:Films set in Cleveland, Ohio and Category:Films shot in Cleveland, Ohio. Levdr1lp / talk 00:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

named after who/what please?

who was the city named after please? cheers Cramyourspam (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Cleaveland, mentioned in the first paragraph of the history section. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this while new page patrolling. While it's worth mentioning, I don't think it warrants its' own article. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should remain a stand-alone article. I'm working on expanding it. There are lots of reliable sources in existence to support additional relevant material to the consent decree. Opendataenroller (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems significant enough to remain a stand-alone article, and all the details would just clutter this one. Library Guy (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about a minor law that most cities have to some degree. Cleveland just did it recently. The Cleveland law, specifically, is not notable, police force laws in the U.S. However, could be.Padsquad2010 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Cleveland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cleveland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth City

Just FYI, Sixth City is a redirect to this article and a web search for "sixth city" returns results for mostly Cleveland and Cleveland-area topics, so the nickname, while no longer accurate in terms of Cleveland's population ranking, is still somewhat regularly used for the city. Its mention in the lead seems appropriate with the redirect as well as the phrase "more historical". --JonRidinger (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was once the sixth largest city after New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Saint Louis, and... Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cleveland&oldid=725281397"