Jump to content

Talk:Sioux City, Iowa

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

Plymouth County?

[edit]
Map derived from U.S. Census data shows Sioux City entirely contained within Woodbury County.

I noticed that RifeIdeas recently reverted an edit which removed "Plymouth County" from the text of this article; RifeIdeas said in the edit summary that no source had been provided to show that Sioux City does not extend into Plymouth County. Can anyone here provide a source that shows that Sioux City does extend into Plymouth County? The map we have in the article (see right), which was derived from U.S. Census data, shows Sioux City entirely contained within Woodbury County. This article claims several times that parts of Sioux City are in Plymouth County, but as far as I can see it never cites a source to substantiate that fact. —Bkell (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that John is systematically blocking any content that he does not like under a veneer of respectability and invoking various rules in an arbitrary way. This is in the play book of various commercial pr firms that use wiki as an advertising platform. No attempt from John to help improve the content - just quick removals. The content could use improvement throughout the article but blocking content that is not in line with the promotional nature of the page is not going to accomplish this. As an Iowa native I know the place very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the top of the page. Hard to edit on this tony device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sioux City, Iowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syew City

[edit]

I'd like to point out that the original French pronunciation of Sioux is Syew, not Soo. 198.84.255.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sioux City, Iowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic cameras

[edit]

I do not understand why you cannot write about camera revenue, changes in crime statistics, drops in reported rankings or anything else that is not perfectly sweet about this town. If the page gives 2011 rankings, why is it forbidden to update to 2015? Why is crime from justice department statistics with references not allowed. Is this just a promotional site for the city run by paid writers? 2600:6C40:1800:1F39:F1E6:4C34:2EB3:102E (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement: "Sioux City is well known as one of the few municipalities that operates speed cameras on interstate highways, generating a large fraction of city revenue from out of state motorists" was not supported by the listed refs. In fact, some of the references contradict it, as other cities within its own state of Iowa (let alone the country) use or have used traffic cameras. Dollar amounts are listed within the refs as to how much income is generated from camera traffic enforecement, but not how it relates to the city's overall revenue total. Outside of that, if you feel that the debate and legal events surrounding the cameras meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements I would recommend finding a consensus here on the talk page to determine if its worthy of inclusion in the article. BarkeepChat 16:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like enough people even view this talk page. Enigmamsg 04:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I added it back along with another reference. Note that the distinctive aspect is not the use of traffic cameras but the use of them on an interstate highway and the use of them near a state border on an interstate highway where most tickets go to out of state motorists. A handful of other cities in Iowa also operate them on interstate highways but very few other places in the United States do. The facts don't seem to be in dispute here (if they are then that would make the article more interesting and someone should add the needed content. I don't understand why this cannot be on the page. The the references state that just the uncollected fines are above a million dollars -- obviously a lot for a town of a couple of hundred thousand people. I don't understand why a paragraph on what is a controversial and distinctive aspect of this place cannot be placed on its wiki page. Reading the whole page it does in many places read more like promotional material and I suppose a consensus around anything slightly negative will be impossible with the trolls that work for the city. I think that good articles handle this by presenting multiple point of view with references on the pages not by enforcing a consensus view as the only thing that can be mentioned.143.239.65.254 (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content added is not supported by the references. Re-read that sentence. 1) "Sioux City is well known {{By whom}} as one of the few municipalities that operates speed cameras on interstate highways" - No reference supports this statement. It is also not unique to Sioux City that cameras can be used on highways, this is true for the entire state of Iowa. 2) ". . . generating a large fraction of city revenue from out of state motorists" - no where does a reference state that out of state motorists, let alone all motorists, supply a large fraction of revenue. Yes, to you, the dollar amount seems large but it provides no reference point to the overall city revenue stream, so, one cannot make that statement in this article. 3) "the city cameras . . . were reported to have strong support from most city officials." - No where in the provided reference is this statement supported. The news article discusses the collection of unpaid fines. With that said, in the transportation section of the article I noted the city has cameras operated by Redflex. Although, judging by the most recent news article the cameras have a chance of being removed at some point; which, of course these added statement would wither need to be removed or amended. BarkeepChat 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The long term import of this is zero. This is not a local interest bulletin board. It is an encyclopedia article, the purpose of which is to summarize the significant details about the city that have been published in reliable independent secondary sources. The long view is what is needed. This is a primarily local story and you have shown nothing to indicate it has any significance at all outside the local area. I reject the idea of including any of this. John from Idegon (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now edits are completely forbidden. What a crappy set of characters run this page. Nothing negative can be said about this town or the page is locked down. What kind of action is that? How can one believe any content on wikipedia when it is written by vested interests and cannot be added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:1800:1F39:114:D8E:E5A0:4A0C (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep seems to want the camera information under transportion. That seems reasonable. Added it back there. Don't know why John from Igadon is so opposed to any information about that -- shill? 2600:6C40:1800:1F39:4C63:B81A:CCF1:FFEB (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Iowa study on disinvestment in the downtown area is a secondary source containing many references and contributions by many people. This should be left in. There are clearly many many sources some referenced on the speed camera issue I add some additional. Don't keep removing text because you do not like any criticism of this town. It is wikipedia not a tourism brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:1800:1F39:4C63:B81A:CCF1:FFEB (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, Stop arbitrarily undoing the content. Barkeep is improving by making changes to be consistent with wikipolicies. You are just blanket blocking content. You should get lost. The content is valid and useful. Apparently given your desire to suppress, it is also interesting content. Leave it alone. You are a shill for the City or maybe redflex and the city. This is not supposed to be a promotional page for the city. 2600:6C40:1800:1F39:EC49:9398:4F0A:EF7F (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits July, 2017

[edit]

Pinging Barkeep, Enigmaman. Sorry for my lack of participation here, but I think it's understandable with the abuse the IP was heaping. I do not think any of the IP's additions are of value and I'll delineate the reasons :

  1. The bit on the comparative median income is bad statistical methodology. The demographics section is referenced to census data, and the IP's addition is referenced to a state database. Further, comparisons of one city to another are really not on topic for any particular settlement article. If we are going to do that, a list type article comparing all cities in the state would be more appropriate. I have no knowledge on whether that list exists for Iowa or not.
  2. The bit on urban blight is poorly sourced to one single unvetted study. No secondary sources. Before an academic source is of use, it minimally needs to be published in a respected journal per RS. RECENT applies also.
  3. The traffic cam bit is the strongest of his additions, but it too smacks of RECENT and NOTNEWS. I don't think it belongs in the transportation section at all, but possibly one very small mention in history, with emphasis on the South Dakota connection. I am against including anything, but am open to some discussion on that.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. I'd like to try to come to a consensus soon so an edit request can be made prior to the IP being unblocked and the page protection lifted. My Internet access is pretty limited at this time, but I'll try to get by here daily. Not that I need to defend myself, but the IP's allegations were pure bullshit. I'm a Wikipedian with nearly 6 years experience, and am quite active on many social geography topics, primarily US settlements and US schools. I've passed through Sioux City once on a bus about 13 years ago. It was early on a Sunday morning and the place seemed pretty typically Midwestern, a lot like my long time home of Kalamazoo, Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of incomes with Iowa is not comparison with other cities. It is comparison with the state as a whole. I thought someone from Michigan would know that Iowa is a state. I think that it is a legit reference point. Also a large fraction of the downtown large buildings are either vacant or partly vacant see e.g. http://dirtamericana.com/2016/09/downtown-revitalization-sioux-city/. Plenty of references to support this if needed. 24.217.216.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the discussion, there seems to be confusion over the term "interstate highway", which is the distinctive feature of the camera issue. Interstate highway in this context means highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System, as opposed to other roads/highways. This should be clarified in the article especially since wiki is global and readers outside the U.S. may not understand this distinction. 24.217.216.63 (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Have not seen IP -- did John get her blocked so she cannot participate? Seems unfair. Also what is it with the profanity "bulls..." on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.216.63 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to 2600:6c40:1800:1f39:ec49:9398:4f0a:ef7f, she got herself blocked for some of her statements here. Minor profanity (like, yes, bullshit) may not be good form, but it's also not explicitly against guidelines. Harassment of other editors is clearly against the guidelines, and the 2600… IP appears to have flagrantly crossed the line with her comments. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait until ip can join the discussion before making changes to remove the stuff they added. The page has a stilted flavour maybe because it has been too tightly controlled. 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:71 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed - Information in Sioux City, Iowa article is inaccurate

[edit]

On November 1, 2017 -The crime rate information listed for Sioux City, Iowa is inaccurate. I am writing this message so other editors will see this and know that updated/accurate info is needed. We would just like to see current and accurate information posted. The image is also decades old. Update skyline photos are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.150.65 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Who is this "we" you speak of?
  2. Provide reliable independent sources for these updates you seem to be requesting..
  3. Images are tricky. We cannot use most images. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "areavibes.com" is accurate or not. Regardless, the information is WP:UNDUE in the lede. I've moved it lower on the page, and wouldn't object to a complete removal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What images can you support? 192.68.150.65 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue of file type, it's an issue of copyright. And again, which is this "we" you speak of? If you expect your requests to be taken seriously, you will need to address that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FBI crime statistics should be a reliable source. The data on the page is supported by the listed reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.118 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced paragraph on site selection ratings and clarified what is being rated. Not sure that it is very important how many commercial construction projects were under way years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.252.69 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Why not update the entry for Wansink? According to the wikipedia page of him, he is not a Cornell Professor -- he is a former professor who was disgraced. Accuracy is a good thing I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.114.8 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverting unsourced change; an edit summary isn't good enough" I don't get it. This is just from the wikipedia page in the link that this goes to. What's the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.114.8 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Igedon says that we need a consensus to make a change, but I see no dissent on the talk page, just reversions by John. I am reverting this back. I think that "Former professor and discredited researcher" is much more distinctive and important than "Professor" which is a common job. Also, without the word former the current formulation is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.114.8 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think that Wansink should be identified as a former professor and/or disgraced and/or discredited on the page in some way. Let us wait a few days to see if there is any other opinion and if not modify the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.168 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General review of the Sioux City page

[edit]

I can see a lot of disagreement over edits in the talk pages, so I will note my observations here instead of placing any edits myself. I read the page on Sioux City and although I loved the photos, I was mostly dissatisfied with information included in the article. My observations, in no particular order:

It feels criminal to omit Twin_Bing, Jolly_Time, Sioux Bee (Sue Bee) Honey, and the 1945 Friedman and Thomas song Sioux City Sue.

I feel the War Eagle Monument should be featured more prominently in the article. My impression is its historical significance approaches that of the Floyd Monument. Fight me!

The Sioux City Stockyards are historically very economically significant to the city, and are not really even mentioned.

The list of supposedly encyclopaedic residents of Sioux City is far, far too long. At the moment, the List_of_people_from_New_York_City has 1402 people, with a population of 8M and a history of 400 years... Sioux City with 80K and 150 years has 94 "notable people". That's about 7x more interestingness-density than NYC - I would call it suspicious to say the least. Cull some notability!

Whatever prompted the intense population growth in the late 1800s would be suitable information to add. What prompted that population explosion?

Some decidedly un-interesting "cultural points of interest" in the headline paragraph really do not belong there. Has anybody ever traveled to Sioux City to visit the Art Center? No! More like, the Sioux City Auditorium, yes! And I think whatever the particular name of the Riverfront development may be, is less encyclopaedic than the fact that people gather there annually in the thousands for the River-Cade festival, also absent from the article.

Economic drivers of the Sioux City boom-and-bust cycles left an important stamp on Sioux City identity; but economic changes are completely absent from the article. Examples could include:

  • Movement of the American beef packing industry over time, including intense growth into Sioux City, and disastrous pull-outs from the area. Today, only IBP,_Inc./Tyson remains. IBP, Sioux City's largest employer, isn't even mentioned in the article. The article Golden_Triangle_of_Meat-packing covers this story somewhat.
  • The rise and then departure of Gateway,_Inc. which was hugely impactful to the Sioux City economy in the 1990s.
  • The creation of Dakota_Dunes,_South_Dakota which over decades, sucked wealth from Sioux City to the tax shelter of South Dakota over the 1990s and 2000s.

DouglasHeld (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sioux_City,_Iowa&oldid=1213056786"