Talk:Nashville, Tennessee

The population of Nashville/Davidson county

I noticed the population of Nashville was previously correct in this Wiki article. However, someone keeps editing it to an incorrect number, and I don't know why.

Per http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2005/05s_challenges.html, the population of "Davidson County" (which is synonymous with Nashville since they are a consolidated government), is 607,413. Again, this number used to correctly be in the Wiki article.

Now, however, the Wiki article says 578,698 in the main body. The sidebar, however, still says the correct number.

Who is editing this to an incorrect # and why? I can't even find the source of the 578,698 number. It's not one of the more recent population estimates for Nashville so I don't even know where it's coming from. 64.202.137.190 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blame the Census Bureau. The truth is there is no "correct" number. The Bureau just came out with new numbers that don't reflect the corrections they issued just a few months ago (i.e. they are generated by a formula that has nothing to do with reality, so despite the fact that Nashville's population is growing continuously, according to the Bureau, it just dropped dramatically). The Census Bureau is whack, and you can tell them I said so! The only "correct" number is the 2000 number, but I can't convince anyone to use that one. Kaldari 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the census bureau uses a computer model to calculate what the estimated population should be each year. In the case of Nashville, however, the city is growing much faster than the model, so each year the census bureau's estimate gets more out of touch with reality and the city has to issue an official challenge to correct it. The 2005 estimate has been officially corrected, but the 2006 estimate hasn't been yet. So I say we stick with the 2005 estimate until the city's challenge for 2006 has been accepted. Kaldari 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I think it is highly misleading to use the combo population of Metro Nashville & Davidson county, as opposed to Metro Nashville. Even worse is to site MSE populations-- which, by definition, are in no way regularized. The result is that people who read these "statistics" and use them for comparisons, are comparing apples to oranges. The fact that Nashville and Davidson County have a combined government, should not raise its population in comparison with cities that do not have such a purely political structure; what I want is the population of the city proper, and not the population of the city and unassociated towns which are in some cases an hour away (during rush hour traffic). KenThomas (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Metro Nashville" and "Metro Nashville & Davidson county" are the exact same thing. The population of the city proper (everything within the legal city limits) is exactly the same as the population of Davidson County. Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not true from a common sense point of view -- Nashville is just not larger than Denver, Atlanta & Washington DC. What we should be striving for is clarity and accuracy; "Metro Nashville & Davidson County," a political/administrative entity, is not the same as what we mean by "metropolitan area" in general, and "Metro" as in "Metro Nashville" is not the same as "Metro NY" or any other "Metro" with a different political structure.

Balance population is certainly not 605K and I've corrected that to ~211K by a simple method. I've also used that to reflect the population of metropolitan Nashville in the sense people commonly mean by "how big a city is" when they want to compare it to other cities. The main article should also accurately represent such differences, and I've made corrections to reflect that. Further refinement invited, of course.

Also see http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-business/creating-places-nashville-population-figures-require-proper-perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenThomas (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be a separate "population" discussion and I will try to add that tomorrow. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See my response below. Kaldari (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Per capita churches highest of "any" city in America

Wikipedia has long requested a citation for the claim that Nashville has more churches per capita than any other American city.

As stated in the text on Nashville:

"The Protestant Vatican or The Buckle of the Bible Belt: Nashville has over 700 churches[26] (more than any other American city per capita)[citation needed], several seminaries, a number of Christian music companies, and is the headquarters for the publishing arms of both the Southern Baptist Convention and the United Methodist Church..."

As a Nashville native, I have heard this claim by outsiders for many years. But, no one has ever provided any proof for this obvious exaggeration. For one thing, this claim suggests that Nashville's per capita church numbers would have to exceed that of ALL other American cities. How are we defining "cities," and how many American cities are there?

Second, this exaggerated claim has been associated with the number "700" since I was a child 40 years ago. Nashville, as a city, has grown signficiantly since then (even if one excludes the rapidly expanding suburban portions of the metropolitan area). So, the claim would seem to have lost quite a lot of ground over the years, since the number of churches "per capita" would seem to be declining over time.

Finally, as a little test of my own, I examined the internet Yellow Pages listings for churches in the 30 largest American cities (based on the 2006 Census population estimates, which may even represent an undercount of Nashville's population). Mind you, this list ONLY represents the 30 LARGEST cities, not ALL American cities as claimed in this urban myth. I'm only looking at cities and not metropolitan areas, since the claim relates only to cities.

I tried culling this data from several different Internet sources, including Yellow.com, Superpages.com, and Yellowbook.com. As it turns out, Yellow.com seems to have too much redundancy and Yellowbook.com caps its listings at 500, so I focused on Superpages.com.

I realize, of course, that the listings probably still include some redundancy and may include businesses and (in some cases, houses of worship), that are not really churches. Still, when I checked the numbers against those at USAChurch.com, they were relatively similar. So, for the sake of consistency, I assumed that the redundancies were common regardless of location.

So, here are some results:

Finding #1: Among the 30 largest cities, BALTIMORE (not Nashville) has the highest per-capita number of churches, at 0.399 churches per person.

Finding #2: Nashville was ranked a wimpy NINTH (9th) out of the largest 30 cities in churches per capita, at 0.215. Now, this does NOT mean that Nashville had the ninth highest number of churches per capita of "...any other American city." NO, this only means that Nashville was 9th out of the 30 LARGEST cities. Further, Nashville is ranked only in the middle of southern cities (out of the 30 largest), at #7 out of 14. Nashville doesn't even have the highest ranking among the large cities in Tennessee: Memphis is ranked #2. If all of Davidson County's population is considered (and not just the "remainder"), then Nashville's ranking slips even further.

My suspicion is that if someone actually spent the time to rank ALL American cities on this factor (and checked the phone listings for accuracy), they'd probably find that Nashville is relatively low on the per-capita church scale by southern standards and only in the top 1/3 or 1/2 nationally. At the least, this unscientific analysis shows that the claim about Nashville having more churches "than any other American city" is certainly not proven or defensible, and it should be driven out of Wikipedia's text after misleading so many for so long.

Finding #3: In general, this analysis otherwise confirms suspicions that churches are clustered more in southern cities than in western cities or New York. Eight of the ten highest ranked cities per-capita are in the south. Eight of the ten lowest ranked cities per capita are in the west (and New York City). A possible explanation (or intervening variable) may be culture or race. Many of the highest-ranked cities also have large black populations, which may translate into larger church-going populations and/or more-but-smaller churches....

So, I know you people and Wikipedia are dying to know the overall rankings, so here they are (in order of per capita rank):

CITY                    STATE           POP06   CHURCHES PER CAP

1 Baltimore city        Maryland        631,366 2,520   0.00399
2 Memphis city          Tennessee       670,902 2,093   0.00312
3 Fort Worth city       Texas           653,320 1,673   0.00256
4 Detroit city          Michigan        871,121 2,185   0.00251
5 Washington city       DC              581,530 1,449   0.00249
6 Oklahoma City         Oklahoma        537,734 1,308   0.00243
7 Louisville/Jeff       Kentucky        554,496 1,267   0.00228
8 Milwaukee city        Wisconsin       573,358 1,294   0.00226
9 Nashville-David       Tennessee       552,120 1,186   0.00215
10 Jacksonville         Florida         794,555 1,651   0.00208
11 Indianapolis         Indiana         785,597 1,612   0.00205
12 Dallas city          Texas         1,232,940 2,457   0.00199
13 Columbus city        Ohio            733,203 1,441   0.00197
14 Philadelphia         Pennsylvania  1,448,394 2,827   0.00195
15 Denver city          Colorado        566,974 1,091   0.00192
16 Seattle city         Washington      582,454 1,072   0.00184
17 Las Vegas city       Nevada          552,539 1,003   0.00182
18 Charlotte city       North Carolina  630,478 1,139   0.00181
19 Houston city         Texas         2,144,491 3,773   0.00176
20 Austin city          Texas           709,893 1,028   0.00145
21 Chicago city         Illinois      2,833,321 3,982   0.00141
22 San Antonio          Texas         1,296,682 1,817   0.00140
23 Boston city          Massachusetts   590,763   762   0.00129
24 San Francisco        California      744,041   885   0.00119
25 El Paso city         Texas           609,415   555   0.00091
26 San Diego city       California    1,256,951 1,131   0.00090
27 Los Angeles          California    3,849,378 3,046   0.00079
28 Phoenix city         Arizona       1,512,986 1,151   0.00076
29 San Jose city        California      929,936   572   0.00062
30 New York city        New York      8,214,426 1,709   0.00021

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census and RG144.

Questions? Comments? RBG144 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well written and researched. I've gone ahead and removed that offending text from the article. Well done. Cleaned up table display too. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tables are nice and convince Americans as well as any "lies, damn lies and statistics," but I'm not sure your data-gathering method is very accurate. Nonetheless your point is made and the urban myth was reasonably deleted from the main article. KenThomas (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nashville ≠ Nashville-Davidson (balance); Nashville = Davidson County

When looking up census statistics for Nashville, you won't find any listed simply as "Nashville". The two choices are "Nashville-Davidson (balance)" and "Davidson County". You should use the "Nashville-Davidson (balance)" data for the Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee article, but use the "Davidson County" data for this article (and the article Davidson County, Tennessee). The city of Nashville is not a balance, it is a consolidated city-county. A "balance" is a statistical entity created specifically for allocation purposes. It has no legal existence and should not be confused with the actual city. This article entails that entire city which includes the entire county. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The Census Bureau and Office of Management and Budget use "balance" populations as the official census for consolidated cities that enclose smaller municipalities considered to be independent. (This is the case for consolidated city-counties from Nashville to Augusta, GA, to Jacksonville.) One can debate what "independent" means, but when an incorporated, chartered city (such as Belle Meade) has its own mayor, separate police force and separate US Census population, it can't be double-counted as part of the larger city-consolidated entity. What you are doing is double-counting the smaller town. One of the distressing things about Wikipedia is how its users will stretch POV shenanigans into outright disinformation, inflating populations so their town or state looks bigger, or substituting CSA (trading area) populations for MSA (metropolitan area) populations for the sake of looking twice as large. As you will see when the major almanacs are published later this year, the final 2010 census figure for the the city of Nashville will be listed as the "balance", i.e., slightly more than 601,000 and nowhere near 635,000. It will also be treated this way in cross-listings such as "Largest Cities by Order of Population". It is a shame that Nashville's boosters here are as stubborn and willful as those elsewhere on WP. All of this undermines the veracity and trustworthiness of Wikipedia.Mason.Jones (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a "Nashville booster". I'm just trying to explain the facts since they are confusing. Belle Meade, per your example, is actually not "independent". All of the laws of Nashville have effect in Belle Meade and the citizens of Belle Meade vote for the Mayor and Metro Council of Nashville (in addition to their own mayor). Davidson County, as a legal entity, is the same entity as the city of Nashville. They are one consolidated government. The city limits of Nashville are the same as the county limits of Davidson county, both of which include Belle Meade. You are correct that for the purposes of funds allocation from the Federal government, the census cannot double-count the people who live in both Belle Meade and Nashville. This is why they created the balance figures. To say that the population of the city of Nashville, Tennessee is the same as the population of the balance is incorrect, however. Here are some examples of the Census Bureau using the consolidated population (not the balance population) as the listed population for the city:[1][2][3]. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, per your logic, the city of New York would have a population of 0 (since it contains nothing besides five incorporated municipalities - the boroughs). Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the Census Bureau defines Belle Meade as "semi-independent",[4] so I guess neither of us are completely right. Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am not disputing that smaller Davidson communities like Belle Meade share services, are "semi-independent" and can vote for Nashville-Davidson's mayor. That is the case in many consolidated cities. But most of these small communities also have their own mayor. They are incorporated municipalities with separate city charters. (Your example of New York City is bogus, as there is one city charter, one mayor, and residents of Brooklyn have lived in the "City of New York" since 1898.) The Census Bureau sees small, enclosed, chartered towns as independent (and it releases separate populations for them). The problem comes when you try to make an exception to the Census Bureau's official population and rankings for Nashville when all other almanacs, atlases and encyclopedias (100%) will be listing Nashville's population as the "balance" population of just over 601,000 and entering Nashville in that order in national and regional "Top 10" and "Top 50" population listings. It is both erroneous and unethical to list Nashville at the higher population count when it is not seen that way by the Census Bureau, OMB, and all other sources. The Census Bureau is the common source in Wikipedia for all city populations; it is not up to you, Nashville's boosters, or Nashville's Chamber of Commerce to make that call.Mason.Jones (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, however, your 100% figure is not accurate. As I pointed out in the links above, even the Census Bureau commonly uses the consolidated figure when doing city rankings. The Census Bureau hasn't released the rankings for 2010 yet, but I think when they do there's a good chance it will use the consolidated figures (as they did in 2000). As far as other sources go, the usage is inconsistent. The New York Times Almanac and The New Book of American Rankings both use the consolidated figures, but some websites, like infoplease, use the balance figures.[5] If you know the usage of other almanacs or encyclopedias, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses US Census Bureau figures and US Census definitions. These appear on US Census reports and in each edition of World Almanac and other almanacs. The ten-year census and yearly estimates from the US Census for Nashville are the "balance", footnoted as follows: "Part of the consolidated city-county government. The populations of other incorporated places within the county have been excluded from population totals shown here." That's the issue: incorporated cities and towns are not counted twice, and Nashville can't claim incorporated places with separate city charters as its own. Here on Wikipedia, Nashville is the only city I can find with a faulty 2009 estimate for its population (as if the "balance" were a lie and the 2010 census never happened). There've been ridiculous reverts and comments from folks with a bee in their bonnet. It's ego, pride and denial. It's POV at its worst, and has no business on Wikipedia.Mason.Jones (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The definition you quote is the definition of a consolidated city-county balance. This article is about the city itself, not the balance. There is a separate article for the balance. I have no objection to using the 2010 census figures, but they must be based on correct citations. So far you have not shown a single citation for the population of the city of Nashville, census or otherwise. You complain that the editors here are POV pushers and not respecting the sources, yet I have provided 4 sources so far: 2 use the consolidated figures, 1 uses the balance figures, and one uses both (the Census Bureau). Thus the weight of reliable sources suggests we should be using the consolidated figures. If you consider the fact that the city of Nashville and Davidson county are the same thing, the weight of reliable sources is overwhelming. In fact, I would suggest merging Davidson County, Tennessee with this article if not for the fact that they have a separate history. I would also like to make the point that the census does not define the scope of this article. The scope of this article corresponds to the legal and popular definitions of "Nashville, Tennessee" (depending on context), neither of which correspond with the census's balance. The legal definition of "Nashville, Tennessee" does, however, correspond with the census's definition of Davidson County. Thus I would suggest that for all intents and purposes this article should use the census's figures for Davidson County for all years after 1963. Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yours is a POV argument that has no place in Wikipedia: "We say it is, so it should be". But even the editors of the WP article "List of United States Cities by Population" disagree with you: "Nashville, 601,222, footnote (g)". (Just so we're clear, I'm not involved with that article and never have been.) But yes, we're talking about the article "Nashville, Tennessee". All Nashville entries, from World Almanac to the Rand McNally Atlas to the US Census Bureau itself, take the "balance" population as the official population. We're talking about the official population. The very fact that this article is still (!) using a 2009 estimate is all I need to know that something's wrong (and ridiculously wrong) here. It's egotism and boosterism, nothing more and nothing less.Mason.Jones (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how my argument is "egotism" since I live in Oakland, California. Nashville's listed population is not going to affect my ego. You should stick with arguing about the article content, not attacking the editors. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

1970 and 1980 populations

I recently fixed the 2000 and 1990 populations in the Historical populations table, both of which are cited to [6]. However, I think the 1970 and 1980 populations may still be incorrect. The problem is that the census bureau sometimes reports the population of Nashville as the balance population and sometimes reports it as the actual city population. This article is only concerned with the consolidated city-county population since there is a separate article on the balance. I found one book that reported the total population of Nashville-Davidson county in 1980 as 477,811, but I haven't been able to confirm this in other sources or find a good census record so far. Unfortunately, most census data before 1990 has to be purchased. If someone could visit the downtown Nashville library and ask them to look up the population of Davidson County for 1980 and 1970 they would be able to get the census records for you. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Climate section revision

Removed the "pleasantly" from the description of spring and fall warmth; pleasantness varies from person to person and is quite subjective. This sort of description is biased and isn't suitable for inclusion into an encyclopedia (including Wikipedia). The description of just "warm" retains the descriptive power whilst removing the bias. If someone can find sources describing Nashville's springs and falls as pleasant, I'd support including them, as long as they were properly attributed; for example, "Springs and autumns are generally warm, considered pleasant by many(source)(source)." But as it is now it is pure bias, regardless of the popularity of 72 degree F Octobers and Aprils; remember NPOV -Patricius Augustus (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Nashville needs a photo

Hey, can someone go down and shoot a photo for the Occupy Nashville article? Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Cheekwoodwinter.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cheekwoodwinter.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Population edits

@KenThomas: The information you are adding to the article isn't even close to accurate and the source you are citing doesn't provide the data you are claiming it does. Please discuss this on the talk page to reach consensus before re-adding it. Even if you were to exclude all other incorporated areas from the population of Nashville, it's population would still be over 600,000 and not the absurd figure of 211,836. Regardless, Nashville legally includes all of the separately-incorporated areas within Davidson County and thus has the same population as Davidson County. This is just like how New York City legally includes the separately incorporated areas of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island. If you excluded the populations of those separately incorporated areas, the population of New York City would be 0. If you want to compare apple to apples, as you say, perhaps you should edit the New York City article first. Kaldari (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And since when do zip codes correspond to city limits? Kaldari (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I'm not sure what NYC has to do with it :P and I haven't looked at the example, but the areas you cite are considered to be part of a continuous con-urbanation known as New York; the five bouroughs have generally and historically been considered "New York City," not only popularly, but by demographics, city planning and other disciplines.
The new-fangled adminstrative entiry of city-county administrative areas, however, is not what is generally meant by either demographics professionals or by the phrase "city limits." Heck, Louisville's including parts of surrounding counties in it's district, I believe, which allowed it more than double its "population" in one sweep of the pen. In simple terms, what we mean by "city limits" is simply not the same as the official, legal territorial extent of a combined city-county administrative area.
In addition, the political definitons (and the federal and funding statuses that lie behind them) are inherently "gamed" as cities and governments compete for resources. They are thus inherently corrupted by POV and should be viewed rather suspiciously.

In any case, once again, Nashville is simply not bigger than Denver, Atlanta, or Washington DC. We need to find a way to address that.

You are right that zips are not a great proxy, but they can get us somewhere-- in the end, we probably need to work down to the census track level and consult professional demographers and publications (American Demographics comes to mind). "City Limits" as legally defined are also by their very nature arbitrary political districts, and obey no objective, normalized standard.

In the meantime, and as I understand it, the population figure for Nashville includes the populations of Franklin, Mount Juliet, Donellson, and Goodlettsville. These are not conurbanations with Nashville, and pretty obviously just aren't Nashille. Last night (please keep in mind, I came here to find data to compare Mexican city populations to US cities, not to start a battle), I subtracted from the consolidated total to try to come to an estimate. Adding all the zips that are clearly Nashville, gets me to a population about 431K. I'll look at each zip in turn and see where I get tonight, but probably won't get more done (ie, getting a demographers definition of city population or looking at census tracts). In the end, unless someone else has done that work already somewhere (note: I think this not OR, just gathering definitions and adding up columns of data), I believe we have to do it to get an accurate population estimate that is not, as the City Paper article points out, simply artifically inflated and deceiving.

And yes, you have to do that for a lot of cities. Nashville is not the 25th most populous city in the US. That's just wrong, and a manipulated figure. KenThomas (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the zip data and the areas covered, it looks like two of the "non-Nashville" zips include areas that may be inside Nashville, and some of the "Nashville" zips stretch a bit outward. My guess would be that this leaves a Nashville population estimate at ~430K+/-30K.

Alas, that still leaves Nashville looking like it is about the size of Atlanta, which we are reporting at ~420K. That's either true or not true, but I'm guessing, not true. KenThomas (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, but the data comes straight from the U.S. Census Bureau, which is the most authoritative word on the subject. Per their data sheets, the population of Davidson County is 630,000; the population of Nashville excluding other incorporated areas within its boundaries (the "balance" figure) is 605,000. I can't say why your website isn't giving figures which match the Census figures, but there is no way that Census figures will be ignored in favor of your synthesis of data from this third party website. I've gone ahead and fixed the sources so you can verify them if you wish. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Census Bureau is not an authority on this at all. They don't do what you seem to think they do; they're not demographers or geographers, they don't try to define the populations of cities in an independent manner. They report statistical data on census blocks and purely arbitrary political entities such as MSEs, as they are told to do so by the legislature, the executive and other *purely political entities*. It's a political process; if the article was re-written to reflect that you were reporting on "political" entities, and the numbers reflect all sorts of political pissing contests, that'd be one thing, but it just doesn't say that.

My data and methods are perfectly fine at coming to a "back of envelope" estimate, as Einstein put it, and certainly shows that the entirely arbitrary political boundary estimate of 601K or so is simply wrong-- which anyone with an ounce of common sense will know, anyway. KenThomas (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@KenThomas: I understand your point about the popular idea of a "city" and requiring a certain density, but unfortunately, there aren't any agreed upon standards for assessing such figures. The closest idea is probably Metropolitan Statistical Area, but I don't think this is what you have in mind. And even though Nashville and many other consolidated city-counties have relatively low population desities, they are not unique in this regard. Nashville's population density is 7 times that of Anchorage, and more than Kansas City or Oklahoma City (neither of which are consolidated). Perhaps we need a new figure for Inner-city Statistical Area :) Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that there's no agreed upon standards *that we know of.* (Personally, I'd think I might get a different answer if I was sitting in the lounge of the Geography Department at Berkeley this evening). Regardless, this doesn't get rid of the problem :P . What we have here is clearly misleading if someone reads it as an accurate portrail of city size and city size in comparison. What is needed is non-original research into authoritative sources on how city size is calculated, and a bit of "collegial respect" in doing it and working to a better way of presenting this :). I don't have the time at the moment, but will see what I can do. KenThomas (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Good point about density. It was the first criteria that came to mind, but is clearly not the only possible one. KenThomas (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with too many Wikipedia editors is POV. Someone decides that he/she is omniscient and will "decide" what a city's population is. In the case of Nashville, its population must follow the definitions of the US Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget for city boundaries; there is no other baseline or yardstick in Wikipedia. For all intents and purposes, consolidated city-counties are cities: Jacksonville, Augusta, Nashville, Louisville. However, the US Census Bureau and OMB do not include semi-autonomous cities (those with separate city charters) in the consolidated population; thus, they consider the "Nashville-Davidson balance" population as "Nashville". Secondly (and this is very important), they give separate official populations for these two or three semi-autonomous towns within Davidson County and list them alphabetically among Tennessee towns and cities. Nashville-Davidson entities without a city charter are not listed with separate official population counts and are thus considered to be neighborhoods of Nashville. Bottom line: Nashville's official 2010 population is 601,000 (not 635,000, not 431,000, and not 271,000). Also, the Census Bureau/OMB consider consolidated Nashville or Jacksonville to be larger than Atlanta, and that is valid. All encyclopedias (and Wiki articles) address this by noting, for ex., that Jacksonville is "Florida's largest city" but only the "fourth-largest metropolitan area in Florida" (after Miami, Tampa-St. Pete and Orlando), using the Metropolitan Statistical Area as the definition for "metro area". That is the protocol, and those are the facts whether you like them or not.Mason.Jones (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"However, the US Census Bureau and OMB do not include semi-autonomous cities (those with separate city charters) in the consolidated population;" That isn't completely true. The Census Bureau typically uses the full consolidated population when ranking cities by population.[7][8][9][10] Kaldari (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No one decided that they were omniscient here. I saw a problem with the population here, and, as someone with graduate-level professional training in Geography, (albeit in a different area), made a bold edit intented to crack some space in the problem here. Your comments WRT: the Census Bureau are just wrong or some kind of "data fetish:" I know exactly what the Census Bureau does, more or less, and they simply do not attempt to solve this problem or decide what "Nashville is" or what "Atlanta is." The Jacksonville "but only the fourth largest metropolitan area" example you use is simply a fudge, or "folk knowledge," not an independently verifiable methodology. What we still lack is a clear way to represent the population of cities in comparison to each other, placing as much as possible, apples next to apples. KenThomas (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No they do not, and you provide nothing but raw, unofficial data sets from 12 years ago (2000) or general links with no official final rankings for 2010. The official populations and rankings for Nashville and for Augusta, GA (both consolidated city-counties containing semi-autonomous towns) have always shown "balance" city-county populations, excluding all semi-autonomous towns (these towns have separate official US Census populations anyway). I am looking at the 2010 U.S. city rankings in World Almanac and Book of Facts 2012 (p. 613) as well as internet listings such as http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html Both come from the US Census Bureau and show Nashville with a population of 601,222, the 25th largest American city, just below Washington, D.C. (601,723, number 24th in the US). Census populations for Augusta-Richmond County in GA(estimates and final 2010 figure) have always excluded the two semi-autonomous towns in Richmond County.Mason.Jones (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've been wanting to avoid getting into this raucous argument, but I feel as though I must at this point. If you go to www.census.gov, click on "Tennessee" in the drop down in the Quick Facts box, and then select the ONLY entry for Nashville, which is Nashville-Davidson (balance), the number is 601,222, with no estimate yet for 2011. When you click on "Davidson County" you get 626,681. It doesn't matter beyond that. As the legal authority for determining population sizes, the raw numbers given for Nashville-Davidson should be the only thing listed as the population in the infobox and article for Nashville, Tennessee. The Davidson County article should have the corresponding numbers for just Davidson County. It's black and white, and I don't see what the argument is with this, as there is absolutely no middle ground. Frankly, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, it does not matter where the US Census Bureau came up with those numbers or if they used Belle Meade or whatever. They are the official repository of this information and it trumps everything else out there. nf utvol (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition, my apologies beforehand for the chiding tone this is about to take, but, don't we have better things to do with this article than bicker over the semantics of the population discussion? It's in pretty horrendous shape as of right now as a whole. Considering that it's arguably the single most influential city in the state (and, even more of a stretch, but possibly the region if one excludes Atlanta), it barely qualifies as B class. There is SO much good information on the city out there that's easily sourced and transferred to a format usable for this encyclopedia that it's a complete shame that there are so many two line sections and one line paragraphs in this article. Seriously people, if I and a few others can put together a relatively comprehensive article on the freaking airport, then we can do a better job with this! Let's just reach a consensus, get the arguing over, and move on to getting some better work out there for this city. It deserves more than that. (Removing self from high horse and waiting for the angry responses...) nf utvol (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on all points, but several editors have reverted our genuine, official figure of 601,222 several times recently. Some are Nashvillians who won't tolerate such a lowball figure for their hometown, and say they "don't care about the Census Bureau". And recently, a new expert has decided that Nashville only has 211,000 people -- no, wait, 463,000 -- and that the city "doesn't deserve" to be 25th largest city in the US. I will, however, add the 2010 figure for Nashville's metro area after your edit, and hope both remain. But knowing Nashvillians and their pride, I don't hold out much hope. (Just so we're clear: I do like Nashville.)Mason.Jones (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey now, Nashville is the closest city to where I grew up, so I'm what one could refer to as an ersatz Nashvillian. :p You, sir, have offended me! Just for that I'm setting the population to 1,328,833 for the downtown area. Damn you all and your so called 'Census Data'! We all know that's a government conspiracy, anyway, right? nf utvol (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. With all due respect and goodwill, the above outpouring of bullturd is why almost no one with a Ph.D. takes Wikipedia seriously or wants to contribute. I don't want to have a sophomore-level discussion aka "pissing contest," which is about egos "no Nashvillian will accept..." and not reaching an accurate series of representations.

No demographer would claim that Nashville is the 25th largest city in the US. MSA are purely arbirary. The lack of a clear alternative than the Census Bureau (who gives a crap, if you don't know that determining city populations isn't what the Census Bureau does, then you don't know what you're talking about) does not mean there is not a problem. Solve the problem; the current information is highly distorted and misleading, and reflects "we're the biggest city, really!" pissing contests. Let's mark this POV, shall we? KenThomas (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to Nfutvol's comment, you don't seem to understand the concept of sarcasm. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Census Bureau does, in fact, determine city populations. Their numbers are used for purposes of budgeting, taxation, electoral districting, and any number of other relevant activities. I honestly don't see the issue with saying Nashville is the 25th largest city in the United States. It's anecdotal, I know, but I've been to many large cities in the United States, and calling Nashville the 25th largest does not seem outrageous in the least. Frankly, to flat out reject the Census Bureau's numbers regarding what they consider to be the city of Nashville's population is verging on the absurd. I have yet to read a serious academic questioning of their methodologies or rejections of their definitions of a city, and if you have any reputable articles that do that, then please forward them on to me.

This is assuming I'm even reading what you're arguing about right, though. Are you challenging the assertion of a population of 601,000, or of the inclusion of an MSA that is around 1.5 million?

And for what it's worth, I have a MA in Political Science. Not quite a Ph.D., I know, but individuals with advanced degrees do, in fact, contribute. nf utvol (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's one source: the US Census Bureau's ten-year census and annual estimates (using Office of Management and Budget definitions for US cities, metro areas/MSAs and trading areas/CSAs). This is the benchmark used by every American encyclopedia, every road atlas (like Rand McNally) and every US almanac (World Almanac, Time Almanac, New York Times Almanac). You can dislike the benchmark, Ken, but it's universal throughout Wikipedia articles about US places. Consolidated city-counties are cities. (Philadelphia is a consolidated city-county. Do you seek to "reinterpret" Philadelphia's population as well? It can no longer be 5th largest US city?) And Kaldari: that isn't fair for you to insert the full population of Nashville-Davidson (626,000) as "Nashville, Tennessee" without some kind of explanation. It's logical that Nashville's consolidated population would not include semi-autonomous cities like Belle Meade that (1) have their own elected mayor, (2) have a city charter separate from Nashville's, and (3) have separate official populations reported by the Census Bureau. Both of you are just being stubborn; you know you're wrong but wish to impose your POV on Wikipedia. But there is no debate, no POV but yours, and the benchmark is universal.Mason.Jones (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

If there are no objections, I'm going to set up MiszaBot to auto archive this page. It's getting a little crowded in here... nf utvol (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, didn't feel like dealing with setting up auto archiving considering the relatively limited activity. Just archived it manually.nf utvol (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead of article is now contradictory

The lead of the article states that "Nashville has a consolidated city–county government which includes seven smaller municipalities in a two-tier system." It then immediately states that the population of Nashville is 601,222. This is contradictory and confusing, as the 601,222 figure does not include the smaller municipalities. As I have shown many times, the Census Bureau does not define consolidated cities (like Nashville) as equivalent to the balances,[11][12][13][14][15] nor does the state of Tennessee. They are defined as 2 separate things, and we have two separate Wikipedia articles for them:

• Nashville, Tennessee - This is the article about the consolidated city-county including smaller municipalities (as well as the historical pre-1963 city of Nashville)
• Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee - This is the article about the consolidated city-county excluding smaller municipalities.

If you don't bother to look at any of the rest of my sources, please look at this one. It sets out the 2 definitions clearly and concisely. This article concerns the 1st definition, not the 2nd, as clearly explained in the lead of the article and in the demographics section.

The current situation is that the Census Bureau has not explicitly listed a 2010 population for the consolidated city-county of Nashville. That leaves us with 2 choices: the population of "Nashville-Davidson (balance)" or the population of "Davidson County". If we look at either the Census Bureau's definitions[16] or their methodologies when listing city population comparisons[17][18][19][20], both lead to the same conclusion: The correct population to list for the consolidated city-county (which is the topic of this article) is the population of Davidson County. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The "current situation", Kaldari, is that you are imposing your will on Wikipedia, when every other WP city article (see Augusta, Georgia) uses the "balance" as the final population. And so does every almanac in the bookstore, which reports "balances" as the final population of all consolidated cities, including Nashville (listed twice, under "Largest US Cities" and "Tennessee Cities and Towns"). But you go whole-hog: you deleted my last edit updating the Nashville metro area from a 2009 estimate to the final 2010 census figure. Why would you revert the most recent 2010 metro area figure back to the 2009 estimate? Really, you are losing your grip. You should be ashamed, I think.Mason.Jones (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari, I honestly appreciate your spirited defense of this, I really do. It's what makes this a better encyclopedia. But you need to just step back from this for a moment and listen to what others are saying. For the time being, I am undoing your edit to the previously created and sourced edit. You have also reverted to bad data regarding the county population to an outdated and inaccurate number, as well as reverted a straightforward and well sourced edit that does not require interpreting the numbers to bend to the set definitions. Please discuss this before continuing to edit the population segment further. As it stands, you're currently toeing the line of the three revert rule, which will be reported if it continues, and could result in your editing privileges being suspended.

You, nor your counter-point editor KenThomas have provided any reasonable reason for challenging the null hypothesis here: which is that the population is beyond what the US Census has posted as the only population for Nashville, and what the rest of Wikipedia and the world uses as a standard population measurement, which is the Nashville-Davidson (balance). The article has a place for the larger population in the infobox, which is where it should be. Davidson County has its own article that can include this population. Using the county population would be like including the populations of San Marino and the Vatican City in the populations of Italy: just plain incorrect. Now, that being said, the article could explain this difference a little more clearly; however, it should most certainly not put the population of Nashville different than what the ONLY entry on the US Census Bureau's web site that has the name Nashville, Tennessee in it says. nf utvol (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, all of that being said, here is one article from the Nashville Convention and Visitor's Bureau that lists the population as the 626k figure: [21]. Mason, could you provide a link to an outside source or almanac that uses the 601k figure? nf utvol (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2012 shows Nashville's population twice, as 601,222: on p. 613 (List of U.S. Cities by Population, 1850-2010) and on p. 624 (Population of U.S. Places over 10,000: Tennessee). This is reflected in Wikipedia itself: see the WP article List of United States cities by population.Mason.Jones (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so, we have two outside sources that are contradicting one another. The arguably more-neutral one cites the 601k figure. However, the one citing the 626k figure is not without its merits or seriously questionable. Thoughts? nf utvol (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mason: Please stop stating poorly researched assumptions as facts.

• "every other WP city article (see Augusta, Georgia) uses the "balance" as the final population"

• Indianapolis and Louisville both use the full consolidated populations in their articles.

• "The official populations and rankings for Nashville and for Augusta, GA (both consolidated city-counties containing semi-autonomous towns) have always shown "balance" city-county populations"

• I've cited 5 different official Census Bureau tables or rankings that use the full consolidated populations.

I understand there are conflicting sources, but let's not muddy the water with assumptions and generalizations. Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Nfutvol: I'm sure there is some way we can reach a compromise that both sides can agree on, and I think we are getting closer to it. We just need to be more explicit in the wording we use as it seems there is no answer that everyone will agree is the "right" answer. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no logical compromise when people don't think logically. We don't have "two sources" contradicting Kaldari, but every published source out there, including WP's List of United States cities by population, with a footnote. All are based on facts: Belle Meade and other communities within Nashville-Davidson are incorporated municipalities with a separate municipal charter. They elect their own mayor and have separate US Census population counts and estimates. They are not counted as part of the larger consolidated city-county when they have separate populations. That is the rule. That is also the case for Augusta, Georgia, with its two incorporated towns intra muros, Hephzibah and Blythe. Other consolidated city-counties (Columbus, Georgia) have no incorporated places within their boundaries, so there's no problem. You all have gone beyond the pale with this discussion, and it's totally POV now. I state the facts and the yardstick, and you insist on being stubborn, to the point of considering local Chamber of Commerce stats over the US Census Bureau. C of C's are community boosters, never population sources. You folks have an agenda, and it's outside what everyone accepts (including the WP editors of the "List of US Cities" article). You are off base. And let me repeat: Kaldari's sources above are typed data sets from 2000 and general government brochures. My sources are recent publications and Wikipedia itself.Mason.Jones (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoa now, I was just playing devil's advocate here. I think it's pretty clear from my commentary above that I tend to agree with your numbers, I just want to make sure that we can gather a decent consensus here with all sides equally debated on their merits. I flat out said that the article I posted was the less neutral of the two, and while I think that Kaldari has made some well thought out points so far, I still tend to fall on the side of the 601k figure. I don't think anyone here has an agenda to inflate the population. I just think that after this long discussion where things have at times gotten personal people have stopped looking at the other side, and all I'm trying to do is intercede and stop this mess.

Your argument against using other consolidated city-counties as a yard stick due to the lack of independent municipalities within them is, in my opinion, the most valid one that has been made yet. Can we confirm that the cities of Indianapolis and Louisville do not have independent municipalities with their own police, courts, and governments within the consolidated county? If so, then I think that puts the argument to rest in favor of the 601k number. If not, then we have some more digging and discussion to do. nf utvol (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

About half of the existing consolidated city-counties in the U.S. have incorporated municipalities within their boundaries. In some cases, they are explicitly excluded from the consolidated government. In the case of Nashville, all 7 separately incorporated cities are included in the Nashville-Davidson consolidated city-county. In other words, even if you live in Belle Meade (Mason's example), you still vote for Nashville's mayor and you still use the services of the Nashville-Davidson county government. In other words, you are still a "citizen" of Nashville for all legal purposes. Belle Meade just provides some extra policing and recycling services in exchange for extra property taxes. But regardless, I agree that the sources are the most important issue. Since the Census Bureau sources are inconclusive, I'll dig out some almanacs and other sources that use the full consolidated population. I've already cited them in previous discussions on this issue, but I guess I should dig them up again. Despite Mason's wild generalizations, there is conflicting data from any type of source that you care to look at. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For starters, The New York Times Almanac and The New Book of American Rankings both use the full consolidated (non-balance) figures. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked out Indianapolis, and it looks like they have two separate populations from the 2010 census for the city and for Marion County. Louisville, a city-county consolidation that includes smaller subsidiary communities mentions both populations in the same sentence. In regards to population rankings, Nashville, Indianapolis and Louisville all use the balance population instead of the consolidated population on the list of cities page.

I move that we keep it like it is: both the balance and the consolidated are mentioned in the article and infobox with a brief explanation of the difference, maybe tweaking their presentation some to make it more clear. In regards to what should be used when listing this in rankings, we take it to the Lists talk page to get a greater consensus on what number should be used for situations like this. Nashville isn't the only one that's using the balance population first and foremost. nf utvol (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution. FYI, the issue has been under debate at Talk:List of United States cities by population for years. Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

An incorporated town is an incorporated town. I don't see Kaldari's logic (nor do I find antediluvian data sets from 2000 appropriate to any current population debate). That said, I think the current inclusion of both population figures in the lead-in is helpful, and it makes the WP article "List of United States Cities by Population" more understandable.Mason.Jones (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)