![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is ridiculously biased in favor of cities and/or urban culture. For example:
"Cities have historically been the driver of culture."
and
"Outside of cities, most people are not exposed to the same level of diversity-in both thought and personal characteristics-as they are within them."
In many places true culture is considered something which arises from the countryside (e.g., rice farmers in Japan, the mid-Western family farm, etc.) And while cities have more diversity because of greater population and different peoples there is also often IMO a level of superficialty in certain notions of "tolerance"; also there is often *less* diversity in terms of religious, political and/or spiritual beliefs (many cities tend to be dominated by liberal secular culture[s]).
Quite frankly I'm surprised an article this obviously biased is considered acceptable to Wikipedia. Historian932 ( talk) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If the author of the previous comment bothered to read the comments in the "Talk" section, he or she would realize that the page appears to be a work in progress. While I agree with some of the critiques made by others about this page, it is already a vast improvement on the previous "Urbanism" page. I find the framing of urbanism to be much more sophisticated and the case studies much more illuminating than the previous one, which was so "unbiased" as to be incredibly dull and useless. I also find that one has to read the entire Wikipedia page--much as one would read the entire entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica--to understand it fully. I think it should be given a chance to be be read and improved, before being summarily and unfairly dismissed by critics such as Historian932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naagarik ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
In order to maintain NPOV, the article needs to address both positives and negatives of urbanism. The positives are well covered. Perhaps sourced data can be included regarding the following negatives of city living: higher cost of living, higher risk of children developing asthma, typically (not always) lower quality public education. Specifically, one can contrast the benefits of reduced heat energy consumption from living in apartments to the loss of exposure to natural daylight (energy is saved by having less surface area exposed to the exterior).
Additionally, the article should address the intellectual theories behind urbanism, including past successes and failures.
Most importantly, the credibility of the article is completely lost in the lack of cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpachook ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that there is a class project editing this article. This is a good thing, but it's not doing much to produce a unified, concise encyclopedia article. Instead, it's produced a rambling overlong jumble of individual elements, which don't do much to illuminate the concept. The article is far too long, goes into far too much detail about individual projects, and written in excessively academic prose. Would some of the participants please broaden their focus to overall article improvement, removing extraneous detail, improving the prose and focus, and generally improving the article rather than your particular segment? Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This page has become part of an assignment for a graduate class of Urbanism. Approximately 20 peoples are working on editing its content. We are hoping that by the end of our collaboration we present an interesting view into Urbanism from a pragmatic perspective. The deadline is May 14th, midnight EST. The page should be complete by then. Thank you for you patience.
User talk:Dlteif
18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The latter, a lack of talk page discussion, warrants a final comment: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That does not mean "a lot of people working on an article" since that is what you have apparently done--each their own little piece of it. Rather, it means discussing things on-wiki with the intent to come to consensus on tone, content, system of referencing, et cetera, and given the nature of the project that will have to involve other people, outside of your group. I see no edit summaries, no talk page discussions, nothing, and those are the things that help make good articles into good articles. I pointed to a good article above, and I can point you to others: look at Wikipedia:Featured articles, and look at individual articles how much work and how much collaboration goes into it--and look at the FA reviews to see what peer review means here (it means a lot): in the case of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3, it took three efforts before an article got promoted. All of the issues need to be dealt with collaboratively, and on this very talk page there are more comments by non-group members than by group-members, yet you apparently outnumber "us" 20 to 3. Drmies ( talk) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
After planning to rewrite it, I removed this section as unsalvageable, a mixture of OR and WP:SYNTH. It attributes Bernstein's interpretation of Dewey to Dewey himself, and makes claims not supported by the sources. It cites no one but Bernstein in support of this supposed affinity between pragmatism and urbanism--which, incidentally, is poorly defined--suggesting an over-reliance on a single point of view, in fact a single source. There is no evidence that Bernstein's conscription of James and Dewey is of sufficient importance to the topic of urbanism to merit such a section, or that the view enjoys widespread acceptance. One swallow does not a summer make. -- -- Rrburke ( talk) 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
https://uedxx.net/about/ Xx236 ( talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is ridiculously biased in favor of cities and/or urban culture. For example:
"Cities have historically been the driver of culture."
and
"Outside of cities, most people are not exposed to the same level of diversity-in both thought and personal characteristics-as they are within them."
In many places true culture is considered something which arises from the countryside (e.g., rice farmers in Japan, the mid-Western family farm, etc.) And while cities have more diversity because of greater population and different peoples there is also often IMO a level of superficialty in certain notions of "tolerance"; also there is often *less* diversity in terms of religious, political and/or spiritual beliefs (many cities tend to be dominated by liberal secular culture[s]).
Quite frankly I'm surprised an article this obviously biased is considered acceptable to Wikipedia. Historian932 ( talk) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If the author of the previous comment bothered to read the comments in the "Talk" section, he or she would realize that the page appears to be a work in progress. While I agree with some of the critiques made by others about this page, it is already a vast improvement on the previous "Urbanism" page. I find the framing of urbanism to be much more sophisticated and the case studies much more illuminating than the previous one, which was so "unbiased" as to be incredibly dull and useless. I also find that one has to read the entire Wikipedia page--much as one would read the entire entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica--to understand it fully. I think it should be given a chance to be be read and improved, before being summarily and unfairly dismissed by critics such as Historian932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naagarik ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
In order to maintain NPOV, the article needs to address both positives and negatives of urbanism. The positives are well covered. Perhaps sourced data can be included regarding the following negatives of city living: higher cost of living, higher risk of children developing asthma, typically (not always) lower quality public education. Specifically, one can contrast the benefits of reduced heat energy consumption from living in apartments to the loss of exposure to natural daylight (energy is saved by having less surface area exposed to the exterior).
Additionally, the article should address the intellectual theories behind urbanism, including past successes and failures.
Most importantly, the credibility of the article is completely lost in the lack of cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpachook ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that there is a class project editing this article. This is a good thing, but it's not doing much to produce a unified, concise encyclopedia article. Instead, it's produced a rambling overlong jumble of individual elements, which don't do much to illuminate the concept. The article is far too long, goes into far too much detail about individual projects, and written in excessively academic prose. Would some of the participants please broaden their focus to overall article improvement, removing extraneous detail, improving the prose and focus, and generally improving the article rather than your particular segment? Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This page has become part of an assignment for a graduate class of Urbanism. Approximately 20 peoples are working on editing its content. We are hoping that by the end of our collaboration we present an interesting view into Urbanism from a pragmatic perspective. The deadline is May 14th, midnight EST. The page should be complete by then. Thank you for you patience.
User talk:Dlteif
18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The latter, a lack of talk page discussion, warrants a final comment: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That does not mean "a lot of people working on an article" since that is what you have apparently done--each their own little piece of it. Rather, it means discussing things on-wiki with the intent to come to consensus on tone, content, system of referencing, et cetera, and given the nature of the project that will have to involve other people, outside of your group. I see no edit summaries, no talk page discussions, nothing, and those are the things that help make good articles into good articles. I pointed to a good article above, and I can point you to others: look at Wikipedia:Featured articles, and look at individual articles how much work and how much collaboration goes into it--and look at the FA reviews to see what peer review means here (it means a lot): in the case of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3, it took three efforts before an article got promoted. All of the issues need to be dealt with collaboratively, and on this very talk page there are more comments by non-group members than by group-members, yet you apparently outnumber "us" 20 to 3. Drmies ( talk) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
After planning to rewrite it, I removed this section as unsalvageable, a mixture of OR and WP:SYNTH. It attributes Bernstein's interpretation of Dewey to Dewey himself, and makes claims not supported by the sources. It cites no one but Bernstein in support of this supposed affinity between pragmatism and urbanism--which, incidentally, is poorly defined--suggesting an over-reliance on a single point of view, in fact a single source. There is no evidence that Bernstein's conscription of James and Dewey is of sufficient importance to the topic of urbanism to merit such a section, or that the view enjoys widespread acceptance. One swallow does not a summer make. -- -- Rrburke ( talk) 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
https://uedxx.net/about/ Xx236 ( talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)