Talk:Valparaiso, Indiana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Chicago Metropolitan Area[edit]

I am not going to edit this until I sleep on it, but I certainly don't think Valparaiso can be described as a suburb of Chicago. It has a largely independent economy, and takes little of it's cultural or ethnic identity from Chicago. The regional accent is different, and more aligned with central Indiana. The economy includes commuters, but they are a small percentage and there is no viable bus, train, or any other method of public transportation between Chicago proper and Valparaiso. While it may be correct that Chicago is the next big town insofar as one must go there to find and apple store, it is also true that one can buy a mac at the best buy without leaving town. Also, Valparaiso was not founded as an expansion of Chicago as were its true suburbs. I cannot think of one business that exists in Valparaiso in order to serve Chicago's demands for goods or services. It is also worth mentioning that quite a few citizens of Valparaiso are quite resentful of new growth, and especially of any of that growth that is fueled by Chicago. I have a feeling that if you took a survey of people who have lived in Valparaiso for at least twenty years, you would find that they absolutely do not consider it a suburb of Chicago, but if you were to ask people who have moved there in the past ten, you would find they increasingly do (although I still doubt you would get a majority)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Lord Tenniscourt (talkcontribs) 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nearly everything in the above statement is false. Valparaiso is part of the Chicago Metro Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, and is not part of the city of Chicago. By definition, suburbs are towns within a metro area which are not the main central city. One reason it is included in the Chicago Metro is that its economy is NOT, in fact, independent from the rest of the area. This may have been true 15-20 years ago, but is not now. It's much more of a bedroom community than an economic center. There aren't nearly enough high paying jobs in Valparaiso to be funding the construction of hundreds (thousands?) of $500,000-$3mil mcmansions on nearly every side of town. These are largely occupied by people who commute into the city of Chicago or other area economic centers for work. Also, while every metro area in this country has suburbs without public transportation into the city, there IS, in fact, a bus from Valpo to Chicago, as well as plans for a train. (As it is there is a train stop 15 minutes away.) I would agree with your observation that many of the old-timers in town are resentful of their town becoming a suburb. This happens in every small town that becomes a suburb. I personally don't blame them one bit, but that doesn't change an encyclopedic definition. Oh, and the accent? It's the "northern cities vowel shift" accent (look it up), similar to what you hear in Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, Michigan, and Northern Ohio (the rest of the Great Lakes area), and nothing like what you hear in central or southern Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. Every outside observer I've spoken with recognizes this. It's VERY distinctive. Finally, LOTS of the Chicago suburbs weren't originally designed as extensions of Chicago, but were separate towns or cities that were swallowed up. Actually, even some of the outer neighborhoods of the actual city of Chicago were once separate towns and later annexed. This happens in every growing metro area over time, too. I'm not saying I like the fact that Valparaiso has become a suburb, but it has, by any definition. 71.115.87.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

I think this is a useful piece of information for those who don't know where Valparaiso is. Being a part of Chicagoland is a big part of the region's identity, too -- many people live in Valpo and work in Chicago. It's also regarded that way in an official sense, too. Illuminatedwax 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt. When telling people the name of any suburb, the first thing you tell them is what metro it's a part of. In my experience, most people outside of the immediate area aren't familiar with Valparaiso (except possibly for the university or its basketball team), but when you tell them it's in the Chicago metro, they understand. It's incomprehensible to me that somebody wouldn't think this shouldn't be included. It's arguably the most important thing that should be included. 152.228.97.28 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see two people interested in factual details and who have local knowledge participating but don't expect your input to last. You shall be edited out by someone who claims that no such region as Chicagoland exists, that the Chicago Metropolitan Area ends at the Lake County line, that the Calumet Region ends at the Illinois state line, and that Valpo is part of Southlake, a "region" I have never heard of except in his Wikipedia editings (and as the former name of a shopping mall). At least the battle over whether Valparaiso looks to South Bend or Chicago as its big city hasn't been completely won by those who imagine that South Bend is more important than Chicago.

"This article or section is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view." Is this a joke? Surely Wikipedia policy encourages this. Each community's write-up includes data from the Census Bureau, short articles consisting only of that. Lists of businesses are encouraged. Contributers adding historical details or topical information often draw complaints, if those details are not in the latest guidebooks which the editors look to. I understand that Wikipedia relies on unpaid volunteers but putting mainly people with vested interests in the write-ups' slants in charge of things here is bringing the problems on yourselves. And this isn't just about cities. Each band article features details of how high each record made it on the sales lists. What on earth does that have to do with music? What it has to do with is business. If Valpo was purely residential, I don't suppose it would be featured here at all. IanHistor 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Valparaiso = Porter County?[edit]

Almost half of those public schools listed are not within the city of Valparaiso. Was that meant as some joke that I'm simply not getting? I'm not in the mood to make more corrections which someone wishing to make Valpo out to be several times as large as it is will simply remove so I'll simply go on record here. IanHistor (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add any of the schools, but as far as I know they are all schools with Valparaiso mailing addresses, if not all in the city limits. For whatever reason Valparaiso has yet to annex areas where much of the population now lives, so its city limits do not reflect that very well. As a result, there are more schools outside the city limits than inside. For example, while there is only one high school within the official city limits, there are few others within just a few miles of the city limits, in residential areas with Valparaiso mailing addresses, which are clearly more affiliated with Valparaiso than any other town/city. I don't think anybody was trying to be misleading. 152.228.167.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

So you're agreeing that schools outside of Valparaiso are listed as being in Valpo. "I don't think anybody was trying to be misleading." So what? I'm pointing out that the page's information is inaccurate, not that it's vandalism. "Valparaiso has yet to annex areas where much of the population now lives" Just out of curiosity, what does that line mean? Valparaiso contains (much) less than 1% of the population of the world. I think we all agree that Valparaiso has yet to annex the (much) more than 99% of the surface of the globe outside of its city limits. How is that relevant to this article? Valparaiso, by definition, has not annexed any whatsoever of the population outside of Valpo. So what?

The USPS delivers mail to everyone in the United States. Why do so many of you Wikipedia writers & editors apparently figure that that means that cities & towns with post offices therefore cover all of the United States? Only about (very roughly) a quarter of Porter County is within municipalities. Why is that so hard for so many Wikipedians to grasp? Townships are not the same thing as cities or towns. Why is that so hard for so many Wikipedians to grasp? Having been told something or having believed something all your life or even seeing something in print doesn't make it factual. Ahhh, I'm finally getting it: Valparaisans must have an inferiority complex about their city. That's why a big chunk of Wikipedia's Valpo article is simply a list of schools across (at least) five townships, not much is written about Valpo itself and much of that simply being census data, and the federal government's mail service is taken as the determiner of Valparaiso rather than the city's own borders. That's sad.

Education in Porter County is not a function of city government. It's handled by the townships. Either stick your public schools sections on the individual township pages or make a list of all the schools within Valparaiso (although not a function of Valpo government). Do not keep promoting this inaccurate nonsense claiming that ignorance makes it o.k. to lump every school in Porter County in with the cities they happen to be closest to. IanHistor (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...You obviously have some very strong feelings about this. I personally don't, and wouldn't care if it were changed, nor was I trying to get into an argument with you. The only thing I disagreed with you on is that I don't think anyone was trying to be misleading (which you do VERY clearly imply in both of your above statements). I was merely stating what I believed to be the author's intent. Based on my limited experience in Valpo (or the "Valpo area", since you seem to be big on technicalities), a high percentage of the people who say they live "in Valpo" actually live in housing developments just outside of the city limits, which in most cities would have been annexed by now. Nobody I've met here says live in "_____ Township" unless they're being more specific about which part of the area they live in, or they truly live out in the country (not in a big housing development near town). Likewise, as a relative outsider (I've only been here a couple of years and don't have kids in the schools), I've always heard the schools serving those areas called Valparaiso schools in a general sense. In a technical sense, I realize you're correct (if I can sort through the heated emotion in your paragraphs to just look at the facts). I'm not sure what upsets you about this so much, but I have no dog in the fight, so feel free to change it and duke it out with the locals who actually care about such things. I won't be one of them. 71.120.33.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

Well, we both agree on one thing -- that neither of us wishes to rewrite the education section (list of schools) of Valparaiso's page, me because that's not one of my specific topics of interest and because I have grown tired of having 90% of my Wikipedia corrections replaced by errors people have grown up with. We definitely speak English differently however. How did anything in either of my sections imply attempt to mislead? Is that what jokes are taken to be? While I know not to come to Wikipedia for facts, I have learned here how differently others use language and look at the world, which is useful in itself. Therefore specifically what out of my last section implies intent to mislead, let alone clear implication? It would be useful to know how what I write comes across so greatly differently than how I intend it that I cannot see that even upon repeated rereading.

"since you seem to be big on technicalities" This is meant to be an encyclopedia. 'You seriously consider details to be unimportant in writings serving as a popular information source for the entire world, many of the readers having no familiarity with the topics at all? I disappointedly gave up years ago on the idea that Wikipedia could grow into an encyclopedia for me but I keep hearing & reading of friends & professionals using it and their being surprised by my comments on the rifeness of inaccuracies so I can't simply ignore Wikipedia. How do you go through life considering truth & accuracy to be unimportant in general, let alone in an encyclopedia?

"a high percentage of the people who say they live 'in Valpo' actually live in housing developments just outside of the city limits" So what? You're agreeing that what they're saying is untrue, yet you figure their saying it therefore makes it fine for such untruths to be claimed in an encyclopedia? Most whites used to say that blacks were inferior. By your logic, that means it was fine to claim that blacks were inferior. Nazis claimed that Jews weren't human. By your logic, that means it was fine to claim that Jews weren't human. Oh, those are serious subjects, while the location of city limits doesn't involve mistreating people -- so it's crazy of me to care about truth or accuracy of things claimed on Wikipedia? Yow, do average Americans really have such uninterest in truth? Is lying considered bad only when it involves an attempt to mislead, and statements' accuracy itself isn't considered important?

"which in most cities would have been annexed by now" What on earth does that have to do with anything? I thought Wikipedia was trying to be an enyclopedia; you seem to be implying that Wikipedia is rather intended to serve as a collection of intentions and variations, one level removed from reality.

"Nobody I've met here says live in '_____ Township'" No murderers say they are murderers, even after they've been found guilty & sent to Michigan City State Prison. By your logic, I shouldn't refer to them as murderers but, if I write a Wikipedia article about them, I should refer to them as "unfairly accused"?

"I'm not sure what upsets you about this so much" I didn't realize truth & accuracy were so unappreciated. Gosh, I'm strange for caring about facts? Vandals occasionally make up things and post fictional sections in Wikipedia about various subjects, usually as jokes (though occasionally to promote something). If you don't even care about the truth of details (which aren't hurting anyone) in an article about a real city, then you must find it even more goofy for anyone to care about such jokes -- yet that is a matter which Wikipedia gets upset over and corrects as soon as they're found by editors.

Why are you hiding from readers that the reason you're writing about this is because your last name is "Valparaiso" and you get a nickel each time someone reads your Talk comments? Ok, I wrote that attempting to mislead readers but, by your logic, if I had written that out of (bizarre) ignorance rather than purposely trying to mislead, that would have made the statement acceptable, and you would be weird for complaining about the untruth (assuming that you did complain about it)?

I dare say people living outside Valpo wouldn't be willing to pay Valparaiso property taxes. Why isn't that looked to as a reason to refer to them as not living in Valpo rather than some of them saying they're in Valpo? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a collection of folklore? IanHistor (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Starting a resolution[edit]

To help resolve this, I've broken up schools by districts (a few I still need to check). When the school serves the city, I've made a note (except for those schools that are part of the Center Township system, which serves most of the city and the township around it. When I get a chance, I'll add notes to where these schools actually are. Then you can decide if some need to be removed.(Chris Light (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for doing that. I personally couldn't care less about how schools in the Valpo area are classified on wikipedia, but I was about to change it myself just to stop Ian's endless paragraphs of inane whining. If only he had put 10% of the effort of the above paragraphs into fixing it himself, wiki would be working like it's supposed to. Funny that he says it's not one of his areas of interest when his postings clearly indicate that he's quite passionate about it. Oh, and Ian: When you find that 90% of your changes are reversed, that means people tend to disagree with them, and maybe (just maybe) they're wrong. That's also part of how wiki is supposed to work. Then if you REALLY care about it SO much (as is implied by the energy you put in above), you come to a compromise. Or, if you decide the wiki system doesn't work, you stop using it. Simple.71.115.8.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Well said. Notice that he continues it below, as if to highlight your point. Oh sweet irony. 71.115.9.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Others are seeing this elsewhere, with posts long on hyperbole, sarcasm and insult, but regrettably short on civility or a respect for WP procedure (behaviors that I and others have already tried to warn him about).
Ian: Please consider debating matters calmly and try to work constructively with other editors — it'll make things a lot more pleasant for everyone. Thanks Huwmanbeing  17:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ian's endless paragraphs of inane whining." Wow, you're blatently complaining about one taking note of untruths. Thanks for being upfront about that. "If only he had put 10% of the effort of the above paragraphs into fixing it himself, wiki would be working like it's supposed to." If you'd read through my comments and looked through article history, you'd know that's not true. Therefore either you have not done so or you're "trying to be misleading" (if only by hiding your not speaking English as your native language or hiding your still being a schoolchild). "Funny that he says it's not one of his areas of interest when his postings clearly indicate that he's quite passionate about it." Wow, you may attract complaints from Wikipedia higher ups by making jokes like that, as they will notice that you did the same thing as me. Though you probably are right that they won't care that the points of all my discussions, here and elsewhere, were about truth and accuracy rather than a passion for school district boundaries. "When you find that 90% of your changes are reversed, that means people tend to disagree with them, and maybe (just maybe) they're wrong." Wow, so you're actually admitting that you agree with slavery, as I referred to above, because more than 90% of Confederates accepted slavery, and you're actually coming out to admit that you figure people believing things shows them to be true, facts being irrelevant. I think you'd better get ready for a visit from Homeland Security, as you're "clearly indicating" that you believe in the actions of evil governments where over 90% of their residents go along with them, no matter what those are. Now I see why you won't sign your comments, as you're supposed to. That won't protect you however. "Then if you REALLY care about it SO much (as is implied by the energy you put in above), you come to a compromise. Or, if you decide the wiki system doesn't work, you stop using it." Yow. You are denying that my giving up after each of my corrections of untruths is reversed is "compromising" but you also are denying that I should analyze and make note of what about "the wiki system doesn't work" rather than simply ignoring you all and leaving you all to wallow in your unreality. You can't have it both ways; choose one. Oh, you aren't about to start worshipping me, are you? Or to suggest I be nominated for a Nobel Prize, for unbelievably wasting time pointing out errors, that inevitably will be ignored? Please don't. Though those ideas are less creepy than the "implication" that an attempt is being made to extort me into correcting all the untruths on article pages (even pretending that those changes wouldn't all be soon reversed) rather than expending writing effort on Talk pages. If you really wish me to quit posting on Talk pages, why don't you get the Wikipedia editors to set consistent policies and make firm and public decisions about the things I've asked about all over, rather than editors repeatedly disagreeing with each other but denying there are any disagreements? Yes, I'm extorting you to get results for me from Wikipedia decision-makers (if there are any).IanHistor (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian: You state: You agree with slavery and You're clearly indicating that you believe in the actions of evil governments where over 90% of their residents go along with them, no matter what those are. How is this pertinent in any way to a discussion of how to structure data on Midwestern school districts? In addition to being both an insult and a deliberate misinterpretation of what another user is saying, leaping to such hyperbolic accusations only lowers the tone of debate.
The point is that Wikipedia works on consensus, so if you find yourself alone or in a small minority on a particular issue, then you're less likely to get your way than if you're in the majority. (It's not impossible, just less likely, all things being equal.) That's how Wikipedia works. Please note: no one is insisting that's how anything else in the whole world should work — just Wikipedia. If you dislike that policy, you're certainly welcome to debate it, but Wikipedia_talk:Consensus might be a better forum.
Note too that truth is not the standard for what goes into an article; verifiability is. Huwmanbeing  18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Chase Caldwell[edit]

The noteable people section seems a bit biased on Chase Caldwell, His Wikipedia page (recently created) was tagged by another editor as pure vandalism. It seems this is also. Dragoon478 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)