Jump to content

Talk:Edmond, Oklahoma

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

Pictures

[edit]

Can someone and anyone insert pictures of Edmond into this article? It looks very plain. Let's put a positive look on this fine suburb of Greater OKC!


I second that. I'd do it myself, however I don't know how and don't know the copyright rules. But this is really needed. They're plenty of nice places to take photos in Edmond that would be a good representation of the town.

yeah, let's snap a pic of the oak tree security posts. or perhaps the edmond police station...

Well, I uploaded a much larger image of T.M. Fowler's drawing. Maybe that counts for something ha :) 24.253.248.153 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a POV section about the highest cross

[edit]

Removed this from the paragraph about the cross:

  • The overtly large cross acts as a reminder for local residents that God is truly on their side and Edmondites should continue to uphold values of materialism, and consumerism, along with other 'isms' which properly prevent a greater understanding of socially responsible spirituality. Helping the less fortunate, showing sympathy for those with different life perspectives...rubbish. Desiring Humvees and state of the art home security systems which promotes ignorance and isolation from those that are not as blessed was continiously exspoused by the Jesus Christ and a continual practice for this community in contemporary times.

--Amir E. Aharoni 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

veil of darkness

[edit]

Removed the dramatic language from the paragraph about the former mayoral candidate; if he left during the night, provide a source and why that's relevant. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split from OKC

[edit]

I'm merging a lot of info from the OKC article onto here. I don't think the problem with the OKC article is tragic but it's been suggested and I want it done right, b/c I know a lot of people used the OKC article.

^ The above article is pretty hilarious. Was I supposed to feel insulted? Sooner&RiceGrad 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro church did not "dissolve"

[edit]

I was a member of Metro church, home of the cross. The church did not dissolve as the article states. The congegation voted to merge with Life church. This was a decision that had nothing to do with the wake of the cross controversy. Both Metro and Life Church felt the merger would help further the gospel of Jesus Christ in our community.

Beth

Settlers Crossing

[edit]

The Settlers Crossing article should be put into Edmond --Soonerman the I 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to merge the two articles, if Settlers crossing was to be put in with Edmond then all neighborhoods should be included in the article. No need.

yeah man personally i've never heard of settlers crossing. i've been meaning to drive up there to check its legit-ness, if you will, but i usually have better things to do during the day. but personally it sounds like a bunch of houses in the middle of nowhere. could be wrong, though.



The article is about Edmond, not your neighborhood. I think it is perfectly logical to keep them separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.246 (talk) 21:16, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Highways

[edit]

not that anyone gives a crap, but I-35 actually runs straight down the middle of edmond in terms of area. certainly not the center of pop., but definitely so by area.

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/City_Map_with_Map_Numbers.PDF

Criticisms Section

[edit]

As much as I agree with the criticism about Edmond (they are pretty accurate. :P ), is it really necessary to have such a list for a city? I really don't see such a list for New York City and I'm sure there is plenty to criticize there. And I'm not too sure but I don't think it will fit in WP:USCITY's guidelines to have such a section. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to have criticisms because it allows outsiders, as well as residents, to be more informed about what's going on (as well what has already happend) in Edmond as well as providing insights on improving the community. I think the criticism section is important because it can help educate folks on how to make Edmond a better place as well as providing information on Edmond's history. -trichard2010 5/30/10

Any criticisms of a city would have to be properly sourced with reliable secondary sources, and not give undue weight to personal opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon examination, I've removed it. The section is very poorly sourced in some areas. While the reports from the TV station show that something happened with one of the teachers (on several occasions, it seems), that doesn't belong in this article. Merely stating something happened doesn't make it a "controversy," and even if one did exist, it would be more appropriate in an article on the school system. Dayewalker (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the aforementioned criticisms were properly cited and/or did not need citation as it is common public knowledge in the city of Edmond, OK. I'm assuming you aren't from Edmond, Dayewalker. I'm going to restore the section, as well as update and provide more sources. If you have a problem with this section, then you will need to provide your own sources and evidence to refute what is factually incorrect about the criticisms. If you are unable to provide such evidence or sources for this purpose, then it is unfair and inappropriate to all wiki users, as well as the residents of Edmond, to remove an entire section of content with legitimate sources (such as the local reputable news media, and the Edmond residents themselves) based upon your personal opinion. Also at no time, did the criticisms section ever even mention the word "controversy", Dayewalker. Some of the criticisms, such as the Fox Lake protest over the Wal-Mart construction, stirred many emotions amongst people in Edmond. For this section to be removed and ignored is tantamount to unjust censorship. It is important to let the citizens let their voice be heard, which is the basis of free speech and the first amendment right of all US citizens. I also noticed you didn't remove the Awards/Image section, Dayewalker, even though there are no sources to support the claims under that section, which suggests to me that you are biased. -trichard2010 5/30/10
The main issue I have is that some of these criticisms could be better placed in subsection of each topic they cover. Most city articles have a section on public transit that criticism could go there, and so forth and so on. While other criticisms are just plain irrelevant to the scope of this article. Who cares if it is perceived that the people are elitist or the air smells of dog food? It's irrelevant. Not to mention that Dayewalker is right about how the teacher issue would be better placed in either the school where each event took place or in the Edmond Public Schools article. A secondary option would be to have the Education section written out in prose and you could add a statement about said events.
While it might be important to inform people about issues of a town you have to remember that Wikipedia is not a SoapBox. This site is not meant to stir advocacy. Also it is important to note that The Lost Ogle is clearly not reliable source. It even states in its disclaimer that "site's content should not be read as the absolute truth." I should mention that the First Amendment doesn't apply here since it only pertains to US citizens rights toward the Federal Government; not an internet site. Wikipedia is driven by policies and consensus like WP:USCITY that I mention before.
There is just a certain way to go about writing criticisms and I'm sure it can be worked out as long as you be civil about it and not criticize other editors personally. We are all volunteers here. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Public knowledge" is not sufficient to establish notability. If it were, every WP article on a city or town would be full of forum and message board-generated complaints. As Crimsonedge34 explained eloquently above, Wikipedia isn't a site for advocacy. It's just an encyclopedia. If there is sufficient controversy/criticism over a facet of the topic that it becomes notable, then it belongs in the article. Otherwise, it's not notable enough to cover.
Looking at what was added, the nightlife criticisms are from what appears to be a blog post. The police department comment is sourced to a forum, and the dog food plant and public transportation sections are unsourced completely, and neither seems notable without reliable secondary sourcing. The Wal-Mart discussion is the only one that has any kind of legitimate sourcing, but reading the article it doesn't seem to be much of an actual ongoing controversy or criticism of the city. As for the school information, as I said above, that belongs in the article on the school system.
As for the accusations of bias and the thought that only people from Edmond should be editing this article, that goes against the very basis of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit here, within the policies. Dayewalker (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if we're are removing the criticism section then The "awards/image" section has been removed as well as it's unsourced and it's not "notable". I think the "Notable Citizens" section will be next to go this week if there aren't any sources provided. I'm going to start removing large amounts of information from as many wikipedia articles as possible, since Dayewalker and Crimsonedge34 have informed me that Wikipedia is not necessarily just about sharing information. Appearently, it's just about sharing information that's both considered "notable" and properly "sourced". Appearently, any article or information that does not fit this criteria does not belong on Wikipedia. I will immediately begin removing thousands of pages of information from wikipedia, starting with full length articles that I consider un- "notable" information. I will then proceed to go through and remove any article or section that does not have a source to back up the information in the article. Also, if there is a source relative to piece of information and it's not properly cited, I will remove that as well as it wasn't properly "sourced". I will use the MLA and APA formats as a reference for removing sources as well as full length articles. Thanks for giving me insight into how Wikipedia works and provide motivation in how not to contribute information to wikipedia but take away as much information as possible from wikipedia. I hope to remove as many articles and as much information from Wikipedia as possible. trichard2010. 5/6/10

I think you should probably read WP:POINT, which illustrates the consequences of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the author of WP:POINT clarify the article, as that article is full of many if-then-else type scenarios which provide no consistency or valid credible means of evaluating articles whatsoever. The article itself even claims Wikipedia is inconsistent which would mean it's open to subjective intrepretation for evaluating articles in "good faith", also a very subjective term. I recommend that "Notable citizens" and "Events" section be removed if sources cannot be provided. I'm removing the awards section since no credible sources were provided and/or properly sourced. "RelocateAmerica" is not a credible source for determining the "best places" to live in America. The "best place" to live in America is something that would be very subjective and can vary wildly amongst different personal opinions. Also, if you're going to participate in editing articles based upon your bias and double standards, I'd suggest you don't remove information that you claim has not been properly sourced or not "notable" and then go and re-add information you deem notable without proper sources with proper citations of those sources, because this can be construed as hypocrisy. -trichard2010 5/7/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.133.177 (talk • contribs)

Awards section

[edit]

I've readded the awards section, and moved it into the main body of the article. While a lot of sites indicate that "Universal Publications of New York recently named it America's best small town," no one seems to actually have a link or proper reference for that, or know when it happened. Does anyone have an actual reference for that award? Dayewalker (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Events

[edit]

In regards to the City Seal, for one, I don't think that it is appropriate that the words "image cluttered mess" be put in there, as that is someone's opinion. For another thing, I thought after all that happened, the city simply decided to leave the spot permanently blank - so it isn't that they haven't decided on a replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.24.142 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names

[edit]

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edmond, Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edmond, Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Edmond, Oklahoma

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Edmond, Oklahoma's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USCensusEst2016":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Edmond, Oklahoma

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Edmond, Oklahoma's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USCensusEst2017":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted person from Edmond

[edit]

Jazz musician, journalist and popular mystery writer Chris Kelsey should be listed among Edmond notables. See his Wikipedia listing. 68.108.52.49 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another person…

[edit]

Wes Hart, Broadway Performer. Aladdin, Anastasia, West Side Story. Graduate of Edmond Santa Fe High School. 2600:8803:BA00:21:61CD:8978:6012:C679 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmond,_Oklahoma&oldid=1256559418"