Talk:Cedar Point

Summer Employment

I think it would be interesting to add something discussing the overseas summer employment program and the different countries employees have come from. Bridge2020 (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia focuses on the significant aspects of a particular topic, not ALL aspects. If there are reliable sources (other than Cedar Point) discussing this, then post them here for others to evaluate. There needs to be significant coverage, and typically something like this wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that adding the different countries of employees would be an important thing to mention, even with reliable sources. epicgenius (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

150th season controversy

• February 1, 1952 — Sandusky Register from Sandusky, Ohio —- Page 8: “NORWALK, Feb. 1 — Kiwanians at their weekly meeting were given some of the 70-year history of Cedar Point by W. H. Evans, public relations director of the resort.” [see also the Norwalk Reflector, same date (Feb.1) which twice mentions that 1952 is Cedar Point’s “70th season”, as per W.H.Evans.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sandusky Register Star News; December 31, 1952 —- Page 8 [year recap]: “June 13 - Cedar Point set for opening of 70th season”

• Sandusky Register Star News, June 13, 1952 —- Page 1: “CEDAR POINT OPENS 70th SEASON” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked into those sources yet, but here are my initial thoughts. If 1952 was the 70th season, that means 1883 was the first. I believe you were championing 1888 as the first season, per the discussion on JlACEer's talk page. These sources wouldn't support that by the looks of it unless I'm missing something. Do you happen to have any others you've come across? By the way, please indent your responses by using colons (:), add bullet points using an asterisk (*), and sign your posts at the end with ~~~~. I would suggest you read Help:Talk pages to learn more about formatting these discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

...with those ‘1952’ news items, I was not inferring that the Park’s own promotional data in 1952, presented an accurate account of the “first season”.....merely that they dispute the Park’s current promotional data.

Personally, I opted for the 1888 date, because that source was probably less biased...having been prepared by local-historians at a much earlier period. However, you(etc.) will have to decide for yourselves as to which data is the most pertinent for your/Wiki purposes. But ALL of these early sources seem to indicate that there was at least one significant gap (or several gaps) in yearly operations, between 1870 and 1882 (etc.), then later re-started by totally different businessmen. So either 1882, or 1888, could potentially be a legitimate establishment year of the PRESENT-DAY enterprise. But “1870” should NOT be presented on Wiki as being a legitimate beginning year for the establishment of the PRESENT enterprise. (The incidental fact that the different enterprises were periodically established at various locations somewhere upon the 6-mile-long Cedar Point PENINSULA, would be irrelevant to the ‘founding’ year of the present-day enterprise.)< nowiki>2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)</nowiki>

Well, we should keep in mind that 3 of the 4 sources you mentioned directly above were all published by the same publisher and written by the same staff (and perhaps even the same author, though I haven't checked that yet). Also, the Firelands Pioneer source from 1921 describes 1888 as the year significant improvements occurred and, in their opinion, the first year a "concerted effort" was made to operate the area as a public resort. Other sources later on refer to 1888 as an expansion year. The resort existed before this, as other structures were already in place, and both Dwelle and Slackford had been investing in the area for years prior to that expansion. It doesn't seem logical to conclude that 1888 was the first year of operation, even if we only look at the 1921 source.

Second, it's reasonable to assume that sources today are taking multiple sources from the past into consideration when they draw conclusions. This is what legit secondary sources are supposed to do. It's always possible that one or two modern sources are incorrect and haven't done adequate research, but as the number of sources involved increases, the likelihood of being incorrect decreases. Authors researching historical archives today have a lot more tools at their disposal than authors of the past had, and sometimes, a little known fact may go uncovered for decades. Some of the details we know today, for example, may not have been widely known or widely published at the time when earlier sources drew their conclusions. If we look at the 1921 source, for example, there is zero mention of the German immigrant, Louis Zistel, and his contributions in the 1870s. Why is that? Was there bias against German immigrants at the time that may have influenced that exclusion? Was the fact simply not known at the time? This is a crude example, but I'm sure you get the point.

Finally, and probably the most important aspect, we as Wikipedia editors do not perform original research to uncover new facts, theories, or ideas. We rely on reliable sources to do that for us, and when sources disagree, we give more prominence and weight to secondary sources like books, periodicals (magazines/journals), and university textbooks. For books, we assign the highest reliability to those published by university presses, and for journals, the same can be said of those that are peer-reviewed. Newspapers hold some weight, but they are on the bottom rung of the ladder. Opposing viewpoints can both be mentioned, but it's a careful process, and we look to our WP:NPOV policy for guidance. I am glad you're here and learning how this site operates, but this next point is a difficult one for many to accept. To the best of our abilities, we hope that the sources we cite and choose to allow are solid, thoroughly vetted, and reliably published, but we stop short of guaranteeing that they are truthful and accurate. An encyclopedia is the sum of all its parts; some exceptional, some bad, but most of which are good. The best we can do is strive for verifiability, not truth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

...there were two compelling key phrases in two of the sources. In the Firelands Pioneer historian publication, the key phrase is “for purposes of founding a resort”...they cannot have been more specific about that phrasing (although, they could of course have been mistaken about the year...despite that merely about 30 years had passed between ). The other key phrase was the “70-year history” that the Cedar Point guy orated in 1952. Which directly infers that, as of 1952, there was zero legitimate business connection to the present enterprise, to any prior enterprises before 1882. (It was not until at least the 1960s, when Cedar Point, and the various public purveyors of Cedar Point “history”, improperly began to connect the various enterprises together as one quasi-continual enterprise.)

Anyway, I now leave you to do whatever you wish with these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

...oh...and by the way, you are indeed correct that occasionally new facts are uncovered...such as the fact that Zistel was NOT the first person to commercially transport passengers to the Cedar Point beaches etc. But, as you cautioned, that information has not yet been made available in modern publications....so forget that I mentioned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree these are compelling, which is why I decided to participate in this discussion. I think where we somewhat disagree, is in regard to what these excerpts are confirming. The Firelands source explains the purpose of the 1888 partnership and calls it the first "concerted effort" in the public domain. I made sure this was added to the article in some capacity. However, this source does not allow us to confidently conclude any the following:

1. 1888 was the first year Cedar Point opened to the public as a resort. N
2. Cedar Point was not a resort marketed or available to the public before 1888. N
3. The partnership formed in 1888 did not build on land already in use on the peninsula, nor did it continue the efforts by Dwelle and Slackford that began in 1882. N

The Firelands source does not confirm any of that, and its omission of what the area was like in the 1870s is also troubling. If the organization believed it was providing a complete historical record to its audience in 1921, we now know that it was inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete. Even if they believed that what transpired before 1888 wasn't part of the park's history, there's no reason to exclude the events leading up to the park's founding. The only plausible explanation of that, in my opinion, is if they weren't trying to provide a complete account, in which case we shouldn't treat this publication as an authority on the subject. 1888 makes the least sense to me as a viable alternative to 1870.

Then there's the newspaper sources you provided. Doing the math correctly with 1952 being the 70th season, then this means 1883 must have been the first season (you can't count 1882 in basic subtraction, because that would be number 0). I'm not aware of any other sources reporting 1883, so without a highly-reputable source to complement it, we really can't use that on Wikipedia. Let's also not forget that regardless of whether you settle on 1882 or 1883, either one gives you another reason to avoid citing the Firelands source as proof of the park's founding.

And what about the historical marker placed in 2001 by the "Ohio Bicentennial Commission, The Longaberger Company, Cedar Point Amusement Park/Resort, and The Ohio Historical Society"? It makes the claim that Cedar Point was a popular beach resort in the late 1870s, which didn't happen overnight. This means its founding happened at some point before the late 1870s. The Ohio Historical Society, now known as Ohio History Connection, is essentially a nonprofit organization that manages the state historical archive. This is a major authority on the subject, and not one that would be easily discounted. This is another dagger in the 1882/1883/1888 theories.

Again, this is all speculation on our part. There are too many plausible explanations and interpretations of why earlier sources appear to be reporting different dates. We really can't change the 1870 claim without a highly-reputable source making a direct challenge. The park is not the only source making this claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as the years 1882 or 1888 are concerned, neither are correct. The "current" enterprise started in 1897 with the formation of the Cedar Point Pleasure Company. But none of that is relevant. Parks change ownership all the time. Just because we can't trace direct ownership all the way back to the start of the resort doesn't change the number of years of operation. If that were the case, all of the SeaWorld and Busch Parks would only be a few years old. The current ownership has absolutely no connection to Sea World's founder George Millay or to Busch Gardens' founder Anheuser-Busch. Except for the original three Six Flags parks, the bulk of those properties were acquired from other owners. Newhall Land and Farming owned Magic Mountain from 1971 to 1978. Are you going to argue that Six Flags Magic Mountain should not be celebrating its 50th season? And yes, 2020 is the 50th season, the 50th anniversary will occur next year.

James West operated a bathhouse in 1878. Its popularity over the years attracted the attention of Benjamin F. Dwelle who signed an informal lease with the property owners in 1882. There does appear to be a gap between 1870 and 1878, but that is also not relevant. The current ownership is celebrating 150 years since the start of the first commercial operation on the peninsula. The fact that there was a few years gap in operation doesn't mean they can't celebrate 150 years (spare us the married/divorced/remarried argument). Last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing. As I'm sure you are aware, we haven't been going to the moon every year since 1969. That doesn't change the fact that NASA celebrated the 50th anniversary of when it first happened. Cedar point is celebrating 150 years since the first commercial operation and that sentiment is being echoed by dozens of media outlets throughout Ohio, Michigan, and several national publications — even the LA Times. That is what will be reported on Wikipedia.

If and when you find a source that clearly states Cedar Point is wrong for celebrating 150 years, feel free to bring it to our attention. Everything you listed so far has been intriguing, but not convincing enough to change the article.—JlACEer (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

.....I am glad that you both seem to have reached a consensus. So I just did a little more investigating about those “founders”, and I discovered that a FindaGrave (F-a-G) contributor has created a “virtual cemetery” for them, there at F-a-G....but more to the point, also states on their F-a-G profile that he/she is in the process of writing a book about this exact controversy! Although I don’t yet know exactly what that person’s qualifications are, but I will try to contact them and let them know my findings anyway (and particularly about that primary-source-statement as personally orated by the 1952 Cedar Point representative!)...and perhaps you will eventually have the published source you need, to meet Wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If and when such a source would appear, it would be assessed just like any other source and given the due weight it deserves in relation to existing sources. The publisher and author would both come into play. And as far as consensus is concerned, this is more along the lines of WP:NOCONSENSUS at this point, which of course can always change when new arguments and perspectives are brought to the table. By the way, I didn't see you address the historical marker claim, the 1883 dilemma created by 1952 sources, or some of the valid points made by JlACEer above regarding the "current" enterprise technically dating back to 1897. Do these revelations have any impact on your position? Settling on a year in the 1880s seems to compound the problem, not solve it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a side note: Please increase your indent on each reply by adding another colon. You can look at previous replies to see the pattern. Also, there's no need to include the "nowiki" html tags that surround the 4 tildes (~~~~) in your signature. I'm using them to prevent Wikipedia from converting those tildes into a signature so you can see them. Hope that helps!

....nope...nothing further to address about your(plural) various digressions (nor etc.)....except to say that Cedar Point is either the lousiest business-records-keeper, ever.....or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can't get ahead of the sources. We are limited to repeating what the consensus (in sources) is saying. If no one's talking about this controversy, then we can't either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC) --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

....by the way....a minor point...but the Firelands Pioneer (series) reference was specifically published in Apr.1925 (as you can see by the headers of some of its specific pages). However, an observation about Wiki’s strict source-reference guidelines....no worries, because in regard to “historical” publications (of any date, but especially newly written material)....the general public is reasonably prolific about ‘forwarding’ the actual full publications to other readers...no matter who the ‘author’, or ‘publisher’ of the ‘history’. Ergo, Wikipedia is probably the least ‘forwarded’ source-of-information, of history-related content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I quite follow the minor point you're making, but it sounds like the gist of what you're saying is that Wikipedia is a not a good source of information for history-related content. I would actually agree with that. Wikipedia is NOT a source, it's meant to be a reflection, and it's far from perfect in that regard. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

......ummm, that was actually two separate ‘points’....the minor point being that have you repeatedly referred to the 1925 reference as a “1921” reference...a natural oversight due to the google book apparently being a bound set of volumes. But while I am back on here, I will point out that the Firelands Pioneer (series) first began publishing in 1858, and fairly continually from then into the 1920s. It is locally considered to be a highly reliable source (generally). Errors do occasionally creep into it, of course, like any publication. But one thing you can be assured of....it was not bought-and-paid-for by a large corporate entity...unlike almost ALL of the “modern” publications here in the general Cedar Point propaganda-machine radius (many of whom’s advertising income, comes from.....(you guessed it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source, and for that reason, it does have a presence in the Cedar Point article. I don't think anyone is challenging that. You did say "minor point" (singular), so thanks for clarifying that you meant to say "minor points" (plural). Also it would be great if you didn't lead and end with a series of periods (or ellipsis). It's OK to write in sentence form here! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

———- My second (separated) ‘point’, was, that, unfortunately, I have now learned, that I came to the wrong website (here), to contribute "truthful" data, and with too much integrity, in doing such. But at least, now, I will know better, next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that things didn't quite work out the way you intended, but to look on the bright side, the article was updated with "...the first concerted effort to operate the peninsula as a public resort" and properly linked to the Firelands source in the process. Your contribution is appreciated and hopefully you'll consider making more. We can also revisit this down the road if new information warrants the need to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

...no worries! Despite that I came here looking for ‘truth....but perhaps at least now maybe I have a path forward, with a fellow truth-seeker elsewhere....instead of the “verifiability police” on here!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(...oddly, the entire formatting of this page has changed...but anyway)...question for ‘G’: do you agree with ‘J’s assertion that it doesn’t matter if there was a gap in operations of, say, a year or even a couple of years, whereupon a new owner began operations again? For instance, would you, yourself, be perfectly accepting, if you leased a site, opened a business, but it failed within a year or two...and then, a few years later, someone new leased the site, perhaps even utilizing your former structure...and likewise used the ‘name’ of your former business, as well as them asserting that they had begun operations based upon your original opening date? (...I was reluctant to ask it, simply because, as the saying goes, curiosity-killed-the-cat....but...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

....I suppose I should consider that a rhetorical question....at least in specific regard for a subsequent business to assert that they personally opened much earlier than they actually did....that would obviously not be good business-practice.

But, anyway, you also wanted my thoughts about the marker-plaque, which i would point out, that if the 1925 LOCAL historical society could have wrong facts, then why does the Ohio society’s statements, necessarily warrant total trust?...particularly in the generalized wording that was utilized (...and, which seems to be contrary to ‘J’s assertion that there was a seven year gap in operations between 1870/1878.

And,yes, J, Cedar Point is free to make any publicity statements they wish, and celebrate any random event they wish. But that is not the issue, here....the issue, is ...does this Wiki entry represent their true, actual, tenure(...or does it instead represent a totally nonsensical “opening date”, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

....p.s., that marker-plaque inscription: “CEDAR POINT BECAME A POPULAR BEACH RESORT....”(etc.) — is there perhaps a potential alternate meaning to that, being “Cedar Point (PENINSULA) became a popular beach resort (not Resort as in a business-enterprise, but resort, as in destination)? [Be aware, that the wording on those plaques are very character-limited...and, if they had instead utilized the words “peninsula“ and “destination”, they would have far exceeded their character-limit.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"...if the 1925 LOCAL historical society could have wrong facts"

This isn't about "wrong facts". This is about loose interpretation. In your reading of the Firelands source (1925), you are assuming that they are laying claim to the exact year Cedar Point was founded. For proof, you are pointing to this excerpt (with my emphasis in bold):

It was during the year 1888 that Stoll, Adolph, the Kuebelers, Charles Baetz and B.F. Dwelle formed a co-partnership for the purpose of founding and operating a resort. They erected a pavilion which with many added improvements and alterations is still standing and used as a dining hall. For many years Cedar Point with its wonderful sand beach on the shore of Lake Erie had been the play ground of Sandusky, and an excursion to Cedar Point was one of the joys of the childhood days of many of our citizens. But it was not until the formation of this partnership that any concerted effort was made to locate a resort to be operated for the benefit of the public, nor was there any public means of transportation between Sandusky and the Point.

As I mentioned earlier, this source is not making the claims you once stated were being made. It is recognizing the partnership and the events beginning in 1888 as a significant period of advancement for Cedar Point. It calls the partnership the first "concerted effort...to locate a resort to be operated for the benefit of the public". What about individual efforts that came before? Are they different because they didn't focus on "the benefit of the public"? Does it specifically say there were no efforts at all before 1888? No, it doesn't say any of that. We have to take this information at face value. You, on the other hand, are interjecting your own personal analysis and interpretation into the equation, which is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS, but we as Wikipedia editors are not permitted to do that. Only secondary sources can. And do we have any secondary sources citing 1888 as the year the park was founded? Nope, not even one that I'm aware of.

Secondary sources have concluded that Cedar Point was founded in 1870. They cite the construction of the peninsula's first entertainment venues including bathhouses and other amenities. You came across several primary sources that, for one reason or another, seem to focus on other dates. There are many explanations for this, some of which are noted above. If you need help understanding the difference between a primary and secondary source, please see WP:PSTS and WP:USINGPRIMARY. Historians take many primary sources into account to help draw a complete picture. They publish these findings in secondary sources. Primary sources are crucial to the process and can be very reliable for some aspects, but on their own, they often don't fully represent all significant aspects of a given event or topic.

The Firelands source was probably among the better secondary sources available in the early 20th century on the topic of Cedar Point. Like most secondary sources, it consisted of both primary and secondary source material. As time went on, it transitioned from being a secondary source to becoming a primary source for modern secondary source publications. It is one of many primary sources available to historians today. Those who have assembled and anaylzed these primary sources have drawn a conclusion that is different from yours, probably because they have more to look at than you do and specialize in this sort of thing, but the reason why they draw a different conclusion is irrelevant. We are not investigative historians that can go against the grain and present a new finding, regardless if it has merit or not. This doesn't mean you can't take your findings elsewhere, start a blog or fansite and publish away to your heart's content. It just can't happen here without the backing of reliable sources. I hope this is clear, but if you need further explanation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please take it to WP:TEA or ask me more on my talk page.

Also, I'm not sure if the following book is cited in the article or not, but I suggest you scroll down and read its introduction page:

Cedar Point – David W. Francis, Diane DeMali Francis

There you will find how the efforts that began in 1870 are integrally connected to the efforts that took place in 1887 and 1888. This is one of many reputable sources that define Cedar Point's history in this fashion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

...G: if you wish to rely on post-1960 sources about this subject, there is a brand new one that is probably the most comprehensive of all. It was compiled by the Cedar Point history museum’s director(?). (I have not sought it out, myself, because obviously it won’t contain anything that reflects negatively on CP’s current publicity campaign.) Anyway, in regard to that other book you just referenced....clearly they did NOT do their own personal research about the Zistel subject, within OLD historical documents....otherwise they would have easily discovered that Zistel was NOT the first person associated with a public resort/bath-house, there. (When I previously mentioned to you, that you should forget that I previously mentioned it to you....I meant, simply forget it for WIKI purposes...not for your own personal knowledge. Unless, of course, you simply don’t believe me, about it.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe there's a conspiracy or cover-up when you're talking about numerous unaffiliated sources all being on the same page. Unfortunately, it appears we may be at an impasse, unless you're able to produce additional secondary sources that converge on a particular year. Scattered dates and inconsistent theories only muddy the water. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

hmmm....”conspiracy theory”?....well I myself was thinking more along the lines of “sin-of-omission”. But I certainly wouldn’t refer to the fact that most ‘historians’ are simply “parrots” who merely copy from earlier “parrots”...that’s certainly not a “conspiracy”....just pure laziness by using their “beaks” instead of their brains(?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

.....and, note, that the CP historical-plaque is certainly NOT a “conspiracy”, either....because...despite that CP, themselves, co-sponsored it....nowhere in that text is the word “Zistel”, or “1870”....oversight?,sin-of-omission?, but absolutely NOT any “conspiracy” to falsely promote a (nonsensical) ‘founding’ year (because, no such ‘year’ even appears on that plaque.... I guess that they just didn’t have space on it, for “founded 1870”....instead simply a much longer vague statement about those ‘founding’ years?)....but, no, definitely, unequivocally NOT a conspiracy with that plaque. (Do you have any other potential examples of a “conspiracy”? I am certainly willing to take that possibility under consideration, if you have other examples.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions and unfounded claims are fine for blogs and fansites, but there is only limited tolerance for that here. This page is for specifically discussing how to improve the article. If you have nothing more to add, with the backing of reliable sources, then it may be time to put this to rest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

....Sir(?, Madame?, Miss??)...most of my comments are directly in response to your comments. ( If you don’t wish for someone to reply to your comments, then why bother to mention them in a forum that is unquestionably for discussion. If you change the topic, why would you be hypocritical of the consequences?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

You want to see the article changed in some way, correct? If so, then provide additional sources and say exactly what you want changed. Both are needed to move this discussion forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

...I merely came here to the ‘talk’ page, to post some sources that were apparently not suitable for the ‘article’...as per your instructions. The sources did not necessarily require further discussion, but you began one. You subsequently also asked my opinion about many of your opinions...which I declined to give at the time. I am prepared, now, to address them. But now that I am ready, you seem to be threatening me with some sort of gag-order...key word being “threatening”...because, by what authority can you “put this to rest”? [Especially after all of the pondering, theorizing, pontificating, and digressing that YOU(etc) have done here. Does Wiki now give you the authority to shut me up, and suppress MY voice?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You read between the lines...a lot. I was trying to make this as simple as possible for you at this point. You said you had additional sources; I am simply asking for those. What you have provided so far resulted in one change, but there is no consensus to use the others (and you can scroll up to see why, even if you disagree). If you're not really an experienced editor in disguise hiding behind an anonymous IP address, let me inform you that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS). It's only a minimum requirement to be considered. If you weren't aware of that before, then you are now.

Also when I said "put this to rest", I was referring to my own efforts here. I was on standby thinking you had more sources to add to this discussion, but it appears that I no longer need to be. If you wish to continue a one-sided discussion, be my guest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A simple quick googlebooksadavancedsearch for books published betwween 1888 thru 1898 is all you need to do to see that the business name of the CEDAR POINT PLEASURE RESORT COMPANY was the name of the company that was foundered by the year 1888 just like that other messager kept trying to say so something is very wrong when people try to claim other wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:36 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

First year of Cedar Point commercial tourism was not 1870

I was going to edit the Article page directly but I have never posted to this website before so I wasn't sure of the protocol for doing that. But the statement that 1870 was the first year of commercial tourism is incorrect. The Sandusky Daily Commercial Register of Aug.11, 1862 states a long news article about Capt. Frank Povansha was operating a ferry service for patrons to Cedar Point on his tugboat named Captain Lyon. So in the very least there was definitely commercial tourism already going on there as early as the year 1862. Maybe earlier than that. Should I remove the statement which is not correct and replace it with this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:9 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's possible if you dig harder, you'll find occurrences dating back even earlier. None of that changes anything, however. Sources widely recognize 1870 as the year Cedar Point was founded, despite activity on the peninsula prior. Read the discussion above on this page. After doing so, feel free to bring anything new to the table here for further discussion. Keep in mind that it's not our job to research and provide our findings (see WP:NOR). Instead, we rely on secondary sources to do that for us, and the content of the article represents the consensus among those sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

THat ain't what I am talking about. The statement on the artcicle stated that the first commercial transportaton to the Cedar Point was in 1870. But that ain't true because exactly what you just just now above stated in your statement here. SO I removed that statement from the article So please don't miss interpet my articiel corrections to mean something which obliviously ain't true thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:46 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

and btw I aint doing no personally researched WP:NOR fyi. becuz all of these fact already are from a book called CEDAR POINT ITS RACIST PAST AND OTHER HIDING HISTORY. So fyi some one else did already this research not me. So if u dont think their research is rely able then u need to proove that there sources are not true but i already checked the originated source in the old news paper and it was true so thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:46 (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So you specifically have a problem with stating, "This marked the beginning of commercial tourism"? Sources typically state that prior to 1870, the peninsula was primarily used for hunting and fishing. It wasn't until 1870 when a beer garden, bathhouse, and dance floor were constructed by Zistel did all that begin to change. I think it's fair to summarize that this is when commercial tourism in the modern sense of the word began. The 1862 source said Povansha ferried people to the peninsula, but tourism typically refers to "the business of providing hotels, restaurants, entertainment, etc., for people who are traveling". Zistel helped take it to that level. Povansha and others like him before 1870 only provided transportation. Clearly there's a difference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So you saying that people who go to a beach to enjoy just to being on a beach that aint tourism I think your wrong dude people go to the beaches everywhere just for tourism look it up dude so why u try to stop me from tell fact on wikipedia becuz wikipedia say it is for every body but w t h dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:39 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What did I just say? The area was used primarily for hunting and fishing according to sources. Did anyone go there to lounge on the beach? Sure, very likely, but without a centralized, concerted effort to manage that as a business prior to 1870. Click the archived link I added for source #14 in the article. It pulls up an older copy of CP's page which states there was an 1867 local newspaper article calling for "some enterprising person" to utilize CP's "magnificient beach". That would be an odd article if it was already being tapped as a business. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

dude that news papers say capt provansha give boat rides to Cedar point BEACH not nothing about hunt or fish so dont that meant the people goes to the beach there for to just enjoy it there just rite there on the BEACH? so and of coarse they must paid money for the boat rides so aint that commercial tourist becuz nothing say they nobody live there on the Cedar Point so that mean they must be tourist not reside. OMG dude so i know if may be my Inglesh aint good ok but i under stand what that news paper say. so why u dont? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

any way if u dont still dont under stand what i just sayed about commercial tourist but it dont even matter if those people go there for hunt or fish or just to da beach because they dont live there so they must be tourist and of course they pay that capt dude money to get there so it must be commercial right? so ur still wrong dude sorry so ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I'm understanding anything you're saying at this point. You may want to get someone to help you with your responses moving forward. Also, it would be helpful if you provided the sources you keep talking about (Newspaper, exact date, page number, title of section, and author if there is one). As for the book, please provide the ISBN. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

dude this what my aunt helped me write for the first massage hear in case u dont know how to start read from da top of the massage ok thank you?

The Sandusky Daily Commercial Register of Aug.11, 1862 states a long news article about Capt. Frank Povansha was operating a ferry service for patrons to Cedar Point on his tugboat named Captain Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:52 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

and dude i guss u dont know how to use google either so here is web page linked so ok

https://newspaperarchive.com/sandusky-daily-commercial-register-aug-11-1862-p-3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:52 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

and ok so now ur say that people who dont not travels far aint tourist so ok but was people was travelling farther for just only to partying at that 1870 dude but they wasnt not travelling farther to just to enjoy the beach in 1862? something smell fishy about ur explainations dude and i dont meant cedar point beach lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:52 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And what about the book you mentioned? Need the ISBN. Also, a warning to keep this conversation WP:CIVIL. Editors should refrain from remarks like "i guss u dont know how to use google", otherwise the conversation ends. You are expected to look up and provide sources for claims you are making. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

sorry dude it was a tipo it shoulda sayed I guess you dont. sorry ok so thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:c:5110::12 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

dude if u wants a copied of dat book CEDAR POINTS RACIST PAST. gonna be works at CP some body from Black Lives Matters groups she send it attachted to my email so if u want it two so then just gives me ur email dress so i can attatch it in a .pdf in email to u or u can justs go to black lives matters web sites and asks them wheres u may be can buys one printeds at da expanse of dead trees ok so thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:7 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

dude FYI ur explation smell fishy becuz da only kind of tourism is commercial tourism so it dont matters if its modern or old days toursim its all da same its commercial toursim PLEASURE SEEKERS dude if u reads the 1862 news paper dats exactamente it says so ok. so kindilly pleas stop wastin time playin words games and kindilly pleas put da Artcle back axactly da way i fix it or u not gonna be da king of Wikpedia no more becuz u gonna be justs a Court Joker solomente lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:7 (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

well king dude i dont not know what mores u wants me to do so ok thank you good by  :-(

I went ahead and removed that statement for now, not because it was necessarily incorrect, but because it really needs better sourcing and/or to be rephrased. In the end, it isn't really necessary anyway. More cleanup of the entire history section is needed. I've fixed a few items over the years, but I wasn't the editor who compiled most of that info. There's a lot more work to do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

i dunno whats u meaned about it need rephrase because it just aint true dude. obliviously the Cedar Point beaches was poplar locols vacactions spot for long times be for dat 1870 dude guy. so i think what u tryna wanna actual say is about whens the first HOTEL was built. becuz that would be the real true turnpoint for peoples from vary a way long distences to be abled to enjoy da beach and all so they cans stay OVER NITES two. right dude? otherwise it aints no diffrence to be partyin at the beach or just swimmin at da beach because ITS WAS ALWAYS STILL ALL BOUT THAT HUGED BEACH until they bilded the roller costers of coarse then thats is another turnings point right dude?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:54 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

so if u real true wanna make progress dude u gotta take a way all every thing about dat 1870 dude because he aint nothin especial just becuz he let peoples partyin on his beach instead of justs swimmin on da beach or picnick or whats ever elses becuz all theys peoples befor 1870 still be goes there FOR DA BEACH becuz their was lot of place 4 partyin right in the city Sandusky if all of them peoples wanteds to do was only partyin. but when da hotel was bilded then at lest theys can stays over nites at da beach in sted of only justs goin for one day only. right dude?

any way i dont thinks any body wanna make progresses on this Cedar Point article becuz i just now try to added some more stuffs from dat book and now their aint no way to add edit nuthin now so i startin to thinks dis hole websites racist if it wont lets me adds any stuffs from dat book. so whatever dudes

You had a problem with the "commercial tourism" statement. After discussion, it was removed like you wanted. If there are other changes you'd like to see, then write exactly what you want to say, and we can further discuss it if necessary. But I strongly suggest you get someone to help you, so that we can properly understand what it is you want to include or change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

dudes u musts thinks dat i justs sum dum stupids PR blatino if u thinks i dont not knows what it meaned when u sayed REVERTED IN TO LAST STABLE VERSON. or un less u justs tryna playin more words games if u tryna sayed meaned a casa 4 caballos dat kinda STABLE becuz other wise what u sayed sound look vary racist king dude. and dat edjohnton dude he musts thinks dat i justs sum dum PR blatino two if he think i dont not knows what it meaned when he shutted off da add edits rite afters u ask me dat name of dat book and i tells u it cedar point its racist past dudes. and he sayed becuz it dat it becuz edits waring but they aint no edits waring dude. no body was edits nuthin their when he shuts off da adds edits 4 da CP artical. and now u tryna sayin dat it alls dont look and sound vary racist dude? whatever so good by dudes

all of the names of the amusement park not just Cedar Point

and btw why doesnt the article tell about the other old names of the amusement park like the CEDAR POINT PLEASURE RESORT was it's first name just like it tells in a old book called SANDUSKY OF TODAY it was publish in 1888 and u can even read it on the ohio history website thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:46 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are always a work in progress. If you want to add missing information, feel free to do so, but be sure to provide the source. If you need help citing references, see WP:REFB or ask for help at WP:TEA. You can also do nothing, and hopefully someone watching this talk page will get around to the request. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

so hear on talkpages u telling me to add my fact to the articles page but their on the articles page u telling me to wait for consensual so w t h dude make up ur mind ok thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:39 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Earlier, you tried to remove a statement and I disagreed. That's a separate discussion and has nothing to do with adding to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

dude it aint a works in progress if u go back wards every time i tried to deleted a lie from that articles. that aint progress dude but it sound like u must be da king on wikipedia so tell me what u wants me do king i will do it if u wants me to writes more stuff there. but even if u gonna leaf the lie their too then it will all be vary stupid becuz all ready it says too differents things it says 1870 commercial tourist but and few later sentence after that it say 1888 is first efforts to make a pubic resort so dont that means same thing as first commercial toursim i think its do. so then and if now so if i add more about that commercial toursim in 1864 add of what all ready there so the hole history story gonna sound real stupid right? well any way so whats ever u wants me do will be wait for when my Ant can help again me to writes better Inglesh for the articles ok so thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

refunds law suit please add that info into article also thank you

and an other thing why dont the article even mention the classes action law suit from all the many ones who wanted covid 19 refunds but Cedar Point want better to be in a law suit in stead of just give refunds to any ones who want that. so why dont the article mention nothing bout that becuz its a very currently important a think for a lot of people who want to know about that dont you think so please add that two thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:46 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Current news and tidbits are sometimes inappropriate, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. We try not to cover controversy as it happens or unfolds, and instead, we prefer to wait for the dust to settle before determining whether it has long-term significance. Right now, that's hard to judge. Should every amusement park or venue that has an article on Wikipedia have this kind of information added? I think that would be counter-productive, especially in articles that are already getting long in the tooth. When there's a lot of information to sift through, we should retain only the subject's most significant aspects. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)