Talk:Oklahoma City

Archives
Before 2008

Bombing above TOC?

9/11 isn't in the top paragraphs on New York City, so why should the Murrah bombing be so? Not that it didn't happen--I remember that part down to the second--but it really doesn't belong up top in what is basically an essential summation of the city. It doesn't define or epitomize us in any way and it never has. Yes, it was horrible, but Katrina isn't even at the top of the New Orleans article, and it was far more city-altering (literally). Queasy borderline between "merely inappropriate" and "gross historical grief pimping". PhilTLL (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Understand why it would feel odd for the natives who don't go about their daily life thinking about the bombing or in fear for another one, but for most of the rest of the US population, yes, it's the only/most notable thing about the city at present. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, current Google pulls up 21m results for "Oklahoma City" and almost 1m for "Oklahoma City" bombing (5%). NYC and 9/11 are 141m to 11m (8%). 120m to 13m (11%) for New Orleans and Katrina. Personally, I'd say that argues more for inclusion on their pages than exemption from this one, but you're free to argue the other way. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, about mentioning the bombing in the opening--it's not appropriate, especially in the same paragraph about its founding dating--not the same subject. For whatever "bad" occurs in a city, that should not be in an intro, and this "freak" guy (now executed, yeah!) is not indicative of anything.

Open invitation (may I be so bold), persons of OK City: edit this article properly, of course without favoritism.

Rambling, personally: I grew up in Palatine, IL, site of the Brown's murders. I don't know what the article here states, but that's not a prime example of what Palatine is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OKC Sonics?

If the Seattle (Super)Sonics move to Oklahoma, the "Sonic" name should be retained, since the Sonic drive-in chain is based in OKC. This would be interesting, since Sizzler, the steakhouse chain, is suing the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) over the name "Sizzler" in the Hot Lotto game. (There are currently no Sizzler restaurants in the Sooner State; however, Hot Lotto came to Oklahoma in January 2008.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.123.111 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. For one thing, the OKC-based owners seem determined to sever any connections to Seattle and the Puget Sound area. And I seem to recall the NBA having objections to the idea of the Grizzlies being renamed as the Express because it might suggest a connection with FedEx. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture moving????

I have heard from several people that the opening picture of the bombing should be replaced with a picture that reflects the nicer side of OKC. I agree that a nicer picture should be placed first but also feel that the bombing picture should not be removed. I have placed a 1890's picture of OKC in the history section and made a section about the bombing where I moved the above mentioned photo. I hope this is ok for everyone.

Thanks Soonerfever (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy, Neutrality, Completeness

Besides the lack of citation, the Oklahoma City page is a terrible read. It's full of bias. The author (or authors) appears to have created a piece in defense of something. As if disparaging remarks about this city are all that are known.

On accuracy, I didn't get much into the article because very little was cited and because of lack of neutrality. However, at the bottom of the page the article lists "Oklahoma Outlaws" of the USFL as a professional sports team of Oklahoma City. It mentions (co-owned with Tulsa). Especially with lack of citation this is disturbing, however, the Oklahoma Outlaws played all of their home-games in Tulsa. What factually (or in the author's opinion) makes Oklahoma Outlaws a "co-owned" team, or a team that has anything to do with Oklahoma City? Why would Oklahoma City have a claim to any link to the Outlaws, given that the Outlaws never played in Oklahoma City?

Zoroaster8000 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It was probably some Oklahoma City person assuming that any team whose name includes the word "oklahoma" must be from Oklahoma City... they like to forget that Tulsa is here too. You're right, the Outlaws played only in Tulsa for one season (1984) before moving to Arizona. I've removed it.

You're also right that this article is pretty bad. Some months ago, it was much worse, but I cleaned it up a bit and removed a lot of unsourced boosterism. Even so, it seems like the Oklahoma City chamber of commerce wrote much of the article. You can always be bold and improve the article yourself, and you are not only welcome to do so — you are encouraged! It would be great to have someone work on it; I never have done serious editing because I am just not all that familiar with Oklahoma City and my time on Wikipedia is fickle. However, this is a high priority article not only for Wikiproject Oklahoma but for Wikiproject Cities and it needs some hard work fast. I'm putting up a neutrality and reference tag for the time being. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than the things that are noted as needing citation, what needs to be changed. There is a lot of "boosterism" of positives, but plenty of mentions of the negatives, including poor inner-city schools, disastrous results of Urban Renewal, and of course the bombing. As far as neutrality goes, I don't see an imbalance. What needs to change? Jbrown84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess part of what got me going on this article was under the Geography section. The article states:

"Contrary to popular belief, the geography is not flat and treeless (like in the true high plains to the west), though some areas of the southern and western portions of Oklahoma City are more level."

To paraphrase: "please don't think of us as flat and treeless, but if you come here, don't be surprised if you see some flat and treeless areas."

Instead, "Oklahoma City has a diverse topography ranging from.....". Give a description of the types of terrain. Load it up with citations, then if possible, perhaps add a topographical map.

It seems to me that the line itself is completely unnecessary. Very rarely, IMO, should a defense of (or appeal to) "popular belief" be used. The author/authors didn't take a poll to find out what popular belief is, and if they did take such a poll, they obviously didn't cite it. The section does go into type of geography, though again with little citation.

The neutrality issue goes both ways IMO. Both "boosterism" and "disparaging remarks" should be limited. The author's opinion, whatever that is, needs to be limited. Naming objects, places, peoples, terrain, climate; that's great. I'm sure Oklahoma City has great points and not so great points. Saying "this is great" or "this we could do without" or "it's popular to believe but"; those are the author's opinions. And it goes to what the author is trying to prove; hence Neutrality.

I could pick and choose several lines in different sections. That's one line that really stood out to me the first time I read it. I'll take a closer look at the article and see if I can contribute to cleaning it up some. I've never edited Wiki, and so I'm somewhat hesitant to start now. Maybe I'll find my intestinal fortitude somewhere. --Zoroaster8000 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to look more into the Geography section. Perhaps I can flesh it out, cite it, and neutralize it a bit.--Zoroaster8000 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The geography section is what did it for me, too. It is true that much of the "boosterism" has been removed (mainly by me, actually) but some of it is still there, although it is nowhere near as bad as it once was. I may have overreacted with a neutrality tag, but the article is certainly very bad due to its lack of sources. If the neutrality tag is disputed, please remove it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been gone for a long time, but did somebody rename the Canadian River as the Oklahoma River. Rpmayhugh (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the city did that. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed some of the uncited information and tried to clean up the Film district section. It was pretty much a plagiarism from a guest blog article on The Oklahomans' Web site. I provide some citations from that source in the section, but it needs quite a bit of cleaning up still. Okiefromokla 02:17, 26 January 2010

Reviving the Request to Move.

I believe this should be moved to Oklahoma City. There's no other usage of the name that would confuse anyone, when people say Oklahoma City, it's pretty well understood, and there's precedence to call an article on a city a certain way based on the usage (in that it's understood that NYC = NY). Kansas City is not a factor, as I'm not trying to move either to "Kansas City" because there DOES exist confusion in that case. I don't think uniformity is a factor either, because it's been established already that the state doesn't HAVE to be after it. I mean, after all, what's the number one reason we put the state after the city? For disambiguation purposes, of course. After that, people decide on uniformity, but not all pages NEED to be disambigged - disambiguation is only present if it needs to be, and I don't believe that uniformity should matter. I mean, it's not even like people say the whole thing most often, because it's understood what Oklahoma City means. No one says New York City, New York, because it's redundant. The only time you really hear people doing that is if it's very formal, or if someone writes a list. A list is a different story, because since all of it's one list, uniformity does matter - the list has to be consistent with information provided. However, articles are a case-by-case basis. The reason so many city articles disambiguate this way is because they have to - many either share their name with other cities or have a name based on a person, place, thing, or other word (St. Paul for instance also refers to a Priest). If none of this were true (and I know, it's an unbelievable scenario, but bear with me), and disambiguation in this way weren't needed, we'd call everything St. Paul, Boise, and Oklahoma City. But in this case, the obvious solution for any city that DID need to disambig would be to do so, so why isn't the reverse true? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been a long-standing and contentious issue that has gone around in circles for years, and it might be hard to reach consensus this time. I undertsand your reasoning, but I've always found this move to be unnecessary, and I still find no real reason to deviate from the standard way American cities are written (City, state), regardless of it being slightly repetitive in this case. I'm closer to the fence about it than you might think, but the most serious problems with this article have nothing to do with its name. In any case, it might be a good idea to post a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) if you're serious about trying to reach consensus and getting editors involved in the discussion.

These past naming convention discussions might be helpful: 1, 2, 3, 4. Good luck. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other Okie. The standard (with few annoying exceptions) is that US cities are identified as City, State. Adding exceptions one at a time doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Phiwum (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New York City? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference either way, but with regard to New York City, there are reasons for its location not applicable here. The actual name of the city is "New York" which under standard usage guidelines yields: New York, New York. The problem is there's a great deal of ambiguity with "New York, New York", as this often means Manhattan only. Keeping the article at New York City made the most sense and was the choice most inline with user's probably expectations.--Loodog (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the real name of NYC is City of New York or The City of New York, not sure which of the two is really correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Okie, above. The net benefit is relatively minimal at the risk of overturning the apple cart - there is a perfectly good standard in place and no compelling reason to start the practice of introducing exceptions anew. Shereth 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Okie too. There's no problem that needs fixing. New York is a special issue and editors over there are even now engaged in a fruitless debate over the right name. It's best to stick with the naming conventions unless there's a special reason to do otherwise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above move is not needed.--CPacker ^{talk to me} 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Oklahoma City, Oklahoma would be moved to Oklahoma City. To comment on this discussion, please go here. --Serge (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it that time of the year already? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Oklahoman front page.jpg

The image Image:The Oklahoman front page.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is one of two state capitals that share its name with its state.

The other being? —divus 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor added this [1] sentence to the entry at about the same time he added it to Indianapolis [2]. I'm not sure I'd consider the latter case to be "sharing"—it's not quite New York, New York, after all—but I get the point. What do others think about the statement? Is it accurate? Is it encyclopedic? Shall we keep/delete/edit it? GreenGourd (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be a true statement to say that it's one of two cities to share etymological roots with the its state, but that's trivia in the extreme.--Loodog (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sharing name? No! Indianapolis is not the same name as Indiana. It's pretty ridiculous to say so. The statement of "The state capital having all the letter as in the name of the state", or similar, would be accurate. Saying that Chris is the same name as Christopher is not accurate, but is closer than the twisted comparison made in this case, and has different parameters.68.180.38.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

I just noticed that the "letter-matching" for the capital is not in the article, so it's apparently removed, but I keep my comment in agreement for the exclusion of that twisted comparison. 68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential links offered for every US city

At the end, for external links, I just entered the links for American Factfinder & City-Data.com. It would be nice if these links were available for each city [in the US]. Other nations' equivalents too. I've notice that sometimes in references that the Census is listed, but it's usually the home page.

I know there's not really a standard procedure/layout for these "articles" (at least followed), although there are guidelines, templates & such. But, specific links would be nice.

BTW, it's random that I chose OK City; I have no connection & have driven thru the state once ~20 years ago. I visit city pages often, since that's my field (urban planning). I actually should contribute my knowledge in adding to articles.

Would it appreciated if I add certain relevant links [usually about stats] to pages about cities & such that I visit? Of course there is no pay-off to me. In fact, I should make a big donation for all the facts that I've gathered from here. My motivation would just be in helping education, as is true for about all contributors/editors. 68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Gangs

I thought I would read about the gangs that are thriving in Oklahoma City - particularly the south side - but there is nothing here - zero - zip - zilch. Oklahoma City is one of the bigger Crip and Nortenos cities in America. But no mention of it here. Crossroads got closed basically because gang members hung out there. But no mention of it here. No mention of the crime rate and shootings.