Talk:Houston/Archive 2

Legal / Judicial

• What does the community feel about adding information regarding Houston's judicial system, i.e. number of courts, etc.?--Mayur 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames

Any objections to adding "screwston" to the list of nicknames? I mean, it has as much legitimacy as "H-town"... AFAIK both came from hip-hop. 67.180.27.77 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)TriniTriggs

Yes - I do. I dont think that we need to add suchs a derogitory nickname. --ShakataGaNai 23:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not really derogatory. It comes from "screwed" rap music, which just means the record is spun slowly. It's not meant to carry any sexual or disrespectful connotations. 67.180.27.77 23:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)TriniTriggs

Never really heard of houston refered to as screwston. Byt its possible I'm "out of touch" - is there any references for this nickname? Thats all I wonder. --ShakataGaNai 23:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No references in text, but plenty in the rap scene. The term is carried in an oral tradition (not trying to be silly).67.180.27.77 23:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)TriniTriggs

I object, if classical music fans named the town "Whoreland" would we consider it an acceptable nickname? Postoak 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well consider this. You may not have ever seriously called Houston "screwston", but a real and substantial cross-section of the population really does use "screwston" with a straight face. To dismiss it as stupid or whatever strikes me as chauvinistic.67.180.27.77 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)TriniTriggs

You should also consider that a real and substantial cross-section of the population does not use or has ever heard of this nickname. Shouldn't we try to use offical nicknames? Postoak 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that it's not intended to be offensive, but it would be perceived so by many casual web surfers. If it is included, it should have an explanation following it. That's a bit much for an infobox. I would say leave it out of the infobox, but put it in the body of the article with an explanation of its origin.Rockhopper10r 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is in the body of the article, and has been there for some time now...see "A cosmopolitan city" Postoak 04:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of this either. In my opinion, we should only stick with "Space City" and "Bayou City". Adding "H-Town" in there wasn't appropriate either. I or any of the people I encountered don't refer to Houston as "H-Town". "H-Town" is slang and is not even American English. It is only used by a certain subgroup/subculture in their music or rather, trash talk. I am going to remove "H-Town" since the general or civilized population do not refer to Houston as that, therefore it is not legitimate. We shouldn't have street talk/slang languages or phrases in an encylopedia. RJN 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The nickname of H-Town I believe comes from when the Arena Theatre (located off of the Southwest Freeway) was renamed to the H-Town Arena Theatre. I have lived in Houston for 36 years and only in the last two or three of I actually heard the name H-Town to refer to Houston. Nevertheless, I would give it legitamacy has a nickname for Houston. James084 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of folks use H-town colloquially. I restored it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't hear it often, but it seems to be gaining credence especially with out of towners for some reason. I am with Katefan on this one. EasilyAmused 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the reference in Wikipedia to "screwed" music very useful in researching Houston pop culture for my job. It's little tidbits like this that make Wikipedia one of the most useful internet resources I have for my job, and I appreciate that someone thought it was important enough to include.fauxpasta 22:49, 02 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard Screwston and the "City of Screw" used many times. Like TriniTriggs said, it stems from the "screwed" music. But naturally even if there's no derogatory connection, you're not going to hear it used in as many contexts. (What news anchor would dare?) Additionally, I doubt it's the type of thing most Wikipedia editors would stumble across (sorry for generalizing). This doesn't make it any less of a nickname though. I vote for it. 67.10.252.128 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fattest City

Houston is no longer the "fattest city" according to Men's Fitness magazine. I feel that we should remove the 2005 ranking and the doughnut comments and replace with something more appropriate. Do we even want to update with the 2006 ranking? Postoak 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "fattest city" status from the article. What is the 2006 ranking like and is it available? RJN 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should just be removed. Out of curiosity, what's now #1? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The rankings are here: http://www.mensfitness.com/rankings/358?page=2. Houston moved to #5 while Chicago moves to first place. I will remove the ranking, will maybe replace this subsection with something more positive later. Postoak 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the fattest

Postoak removed the section

Houston was named "the fattest city in the nation" three years in a row before losing to Detroit, Michigan.[1][2]

Why? It's well sourced and it's one of Houston's main claim to fame. There have even been documentaries made on the subject. // Liftarn

Yes, I removed the section. It was discussed in Talk. The original article mentioned the 2005 ranking so I felt it was outdated in 2006. The ranking being considered "one of Houston's main claim to fame" is your opinion. The methodology used by the magazine (which happens to be related to the National Enquirer) to rank the cities is unscientific and questionable. Postoak 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Since it's written in the past tense I don't see the problem. Should all historic material be purged? I don't think so. I also notice you're attempting to use guild by association rather than providing sources. // Liftarn

Liftarn, American Media publishes Mens' Fitness as well as the National Enquirer and several other supermarket tabloids. In my opinion, the only purpose for the fattest article is to sell magazines. The methodology used to determine these rankings include among other things the number of bars and taverns in the city, number of homes with TV, geography, number of fast food places, etc. [3] Placing a television set in your home does not make you fat. Geography does not make you fat. Even though the magazine makes these fat announcements each year does not make it fact. The real way to prove that Houston or Chicago or Moline is the fattest (and to back up the findings with data) is to determine what is considered "fat" (is this clinically obese, chunky, anyone with love handles?) and then line up and weigh every person in the city. Why would we want unverified, unscientific statements in an encyclopedia? In any event, this is my opinion and I'm not removing the statement from the article although I feel it should not be there. Postoak 18:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Postoak. It's not like this was the most scientific survey. Let's not elevate its importance beyond all reason. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the best would be to calculate the BMI of the entire population, but since that's impossible to do other methods have to be used. The results of their method seems to be quite accurate so it has to have some merit. Anyway, since you seem so passionate about defending your home town and I don't think it's that important (but interesting) I'll drop it. // Liftarn

I don't really feel ALL that strongly about it, but I tend to lean more toward Postoak's side. If this were some real study put out by a reputable medical authority I'd tend to give it more credence. But it's just a vanity rating, really, intended to tittilate. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I made a Houston userbox. It is at {{User Houston}}. I used Chicago's template to make it. :) WhisperToMe 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Woo! (runs to add) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 02:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Postoak 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like a brochure from the Houston chamber of commerce: "Known for the vibrancy of its visual and performing arts, Houston's Theater District is ranked second in the country in the number of theatre seats in a concentrated downtown area per capita and has world-class visual arts... The city is also close to sunny beaches as well as one of the United States' largest concentrations of pleasure boats and tourist attractions... Houston has much to offer, including the lowest cost of living and the least-expensive housing among 27 major U.S. metropolitan areas with populations of more than 1.7 million." If you didn't catch it the first time: "Houston is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts..." More effusive adjectives: "renowned", "world powerhouse", "vibrancy", "international". The Texas Medical Center is "internationally-renowened" and the skyline is "the third largest in the country". Even the freeways are "heavily traveled," not congested. It turns out highway construction and gridlock aren't quality of life problems like in other cities, but exist "to meet the demands of continuing growth." This isn't informative, this is relentless boosterism. Mfk91 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJN's response to Mfk91

The phrase "Houston is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts..." is not anywhere in the article—you made this one up. How is the phrase "The city also has the third largest skyline in the country (after New York City and Chicago)..." read like a brochure? This statement is a fact, not an opinion, so I don't know why you are disputing it.

Houston is well known for its visual and performing arts. Have you ever been to Houston? The information regarding the Theater District ranking second of theater seats in a concentrated downtown area came from the Houston Theater District website, not the Chamber of Commerce. The information is also a fact, not an opinion or a guess.

This article has been through a lot for it to be what it is today. I have been actively involved in editing this article since May 17, 2005 in hoping one day it will be a featured article. By "being through a lot," I meant that this article has been edited and copyedited by many people—a lot of information were added/revised/re-written. This article went under a major copyedit by Katefan0 last summer and she had done a great job rewording the majority of the text for style, grammar, and for NPOV. Later on last fall, Katefan0 had another copyedit session of this article. After all this, I don't see how this article could be written by the Chamber of Commerce or sounded like it came from one since it has been edited/copyedited so many times.

Houston is close the beaches with a short travel to Galveston Island. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. Downtown Houston is about 40 miles or so away from Galveston Island, etc. Why would this sound like it came from the Chamber of Commerce? On the southeast side of Houston, there are many tourist attractions such as the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (where Mission Control is located), NASA, Kemah Boardwalk, Clear Lake, etc. Pleasure boats are found on this side of town. How are these facts boosterism? Shouldn't the truth be told about certain attractions that this area has to offer?

It is possible that other websites online copied information from here—it is very common for this to happen. I have found a lot of websites that copied and pasted articles from Wikipedia to their website. Can you tell me where you found this information to be from the Chamber of Commerce? There is also no such thing as the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" as I searched Google. There happen to be many Chamber of Commerce in the Houston area by geographic area, but not a "Houston Chamber of Commerce." I looked up some of the Houston area Chamber of Commerce websites by area and I did not find any information that is similar to information here in the Houston article. So can you give me some proof that this was written by the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" (as there is no such thing as one) and provide a website to this "Houston Chamber of Commerce." If not, I will remove the POV-section templates and do some re-writting/re-wording when time permits. I would like to know what brochure has information from this article. If you have time, you should study the edit history from the summer time to see that phrases of this article has been edited and copyedited many times—there is no way it can be from the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" (doesn't exist) as you claimed.

Regarding the "Transportation" section (freeways and how they are "heavily travelled," etc.), I don't have a comment for it because I really haven't mess with that section ever since I edited this article from May 17, 2005 to present. Maybe other editors such as WhisperToMe, Katefan0, Urban909, SaltyKid, and Rangerdude could comment on it—they contributed and made copyedits to this section since I have been here from what I can recall.

Regards,

RJN 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Houston's chamber of commerce is called The Greater Houston Partnership . Rockhopper10r 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing www.houston.org, I didn't find any similar materials from this article on that website. This article does not sound like it came from or written by the chamber of commerce. RJN 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I second RJN's statements. I would add "ranked number 2 according to the Theater District" or something like that. Maybe number 2 in size or ticket sales... And yes, Houston's freeways are the arteries and veins of the city. WhisperToMe 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You utterly missed the point. Of course this article is not literally plagarized from The Greater Houston Partnership or any other such promotional organization. That is not the point. The point is that the tone of this article is a sales pitch by some group of city fathers. It is not a dispassionate encylopedia article. All this gushing about pleasure boats and renowned attractions is of course grounded in factually correct information. So too would be an article singing the virtues of chocolate, citing statistics of its enduring popularity through the ages, scientific studies demonsrating that it releases pleasure hormones, and so on. Perhaps it would be factually accurate, but it would obviously not be telling the whole story. What about health effects? Cholesterol? Labor conditions on third-world coccoa plantations? Covering the subject straightforwardly, without hype, is the mission of a sound encyclopedic article. Yet instead of soberly offering the reader insight about the city of Houston, this article reads like a travel brochure. The "Government & Politics" section tells us little about the city's political parties, organizations and important controversies (aside from term limits), but instead tells us "Houston is one of the fastest growing major cities in the United States and the largest without zoning laws." More boosterism. Factually true, yes; comprehensive, no. Contrast it with the government section of the Salt Lake City article: concise summary of the city's government structure, an explanation of politically important issues in the city, a quick review of the platforms of the city's political parties, and a conclusion describing locally significant policies of the mayor and the city's overall political disposition. Similarly constrast the Salt Lake article's balanced treatment of education, which summarizes the mormon's historic commitment to education, the city's underfunding of the public school system and the concomitant problems, and finally noting that the Univ. of Utah is known for its work in computer graphics. The Houston article, by contrast, simply dwells on size. Rice "boast(s) one of the largest financial endowments of any university in the world," the "University of Houston System (is) the largest urban state system of higher education in the Gulf Coast," etc. We have no idea what challenges these institutions face, what achievements they've made, or even why being "the largest urban state system of higher education in the Gulf Coast" matters (how many other "urban state systems of higher education" are there in the region to begin with?). There's no mention of the extremely serious funding problems faced by public primary and secondary school districts. No mention of controversies over bi-lingual or English-only education. I could go on and on. The statistic from the Theater District about number of seats gives the impression that Houston has a theater scene second in the nation only to New York. Oh? I suppose Las Vegas doesn't sell as many tickets, or that Chicago's theater isn't more nationally influential? About Houston's freeways, they indeed are the arteries and veins of the city, but that is a more complex fact. The Los Angeles article very fairly discusses the social and environmental consequences of that city's freeway system, but no such word is found in the Houston article. Take a look at the Salt Lake City article for an idea about tone and NPOV. Regarding your allegation that I made up "Houston (is) widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts," have a look at the 4th sentence under "Cultural institutions." Not only is the sentence as it appears grammatically flawed, but it is a prime example of this article's problem. Who widely recognizes, and according to what criteria, such a subjective claim? Some arts group with a vested interest, like the Theater District? This article is a puff piece from start to finish. Mfk91 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me educate you with something here: In Texas, municipal elections are nonpartisan! There is no way we can talk about "platforms of the city's political parties" like other non-Texas articles. Things are different down here in Texas. Not all places have the same function of goverment and not all articles can have the same information or issues. Also, Houston is different in every aspect from Salt Lake City. Houston is not Salt Lake City—your comparison is irrelevant! RJN 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, "Known for the vibrancy of its visual and performing arts, Houston's Theater District is ranked second in the country (behind New York City) in the amount of theatre seats in a concentrated downtown area with 12,948 seats for live performances and 1,480 movie seats." doesn't seem POV to me. Also, MK, some of the stuff you mention doesn't count as NPOV. WhisperToMe 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

" It is not a dispassionate encylopedia article. All this gushing about pleasure boats and renowned attractions is of course grounded in factually correct information. So too would be an article singing the virtues of chocolate, citing statistics of its enduring popularity through the ages, scientific studies demonsrating that it releases pleasure hormones, and so on. Perhaps it would be factually accurate, but it would obviously not be telling the whole story. What about health effects? Cholesterol? Labor conditions on third-world coccoa plantations? Covering the subject"

Urban spawl? City known for air and ozone pollution? A sometimes unbearably hot climate? Check. WhisperToMe 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the Houston article is similar to what is found in other city articles. Even the adjectives. For example, Los Angeles "...is also one of the most cosmopolitan places in the world, as well as a vanguard of creativity, since it is home to individuals from virtually every nation on Earth. People have always been attracted to the city for its balmy weather, its vibrant lifestyle, its unique, high-velocity energy, and the opportunity to realize the American Dream." New York City also has a "vibrant visual art scene" and "is also home to the internationally-renowned Jazz at Lincoln Center". Do we have NPOV issues with the NYC article? As for not telling the whole story, well, the article is still a work in progress. The article is balanced and well written, but is not complete. Certainly not a puff piece.Postoak 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RJN I am going to weigh in on this one, though I have not lived in Houston since 1983. However, I am a graduate of San Jacinto College, and the University of Houston, worked for the city, and lived there almost a decade. Even at that point, the vibrancy of the city's artistic community was astonishing. I have also lived in New York, and Houston had an artistic community and unique cross-culture lifestyle that matched anywhere I had ever lived, including the Big Apple. I don't think this article is an advertisement for the chamber of commerce, sorry, it is just an accurate reflection of what I saw when I lived, went to school, and worked there, from 1975 to 1983. I have since returned several times, and the City is more alive than ever. Houston matches up favorably, in my opinion as someone who lived there, with any city in the WORLD for it's artistic community, lifestyle, and just the way the varied cultures managed to (generally) blend successfully.old windy bear 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-- It's really inaccurate for this article to claim that Houston is the second most important in terms of theater. This business of "concentrated seats within a downtown area per capita" is completely preposterous, even if it happens to be true. Lots of cities could find similarly convoluted ways of claiming to be first (or second) in almost anything. Chicago, Boston, and LA all have much more influential theater districts than Houston, and often have preview runs of Broadway shows before they hit NY. I've never even heard of a major show making a first-run stop in Houston. --Jleon 14:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jleon I understand your point - but the seats issue is simply one statistic to measure theatrical influence and importance. Does anyone have how many major shows hit each city? Per capita dollars spent at each? I would be curious to see those figures and would wager Houston would do fairly well. All kidding aside, I lived in LA and NY, prior to living in Houston and Houston was far and away the most uniquely crosscultured of the three, though NY was close. LA is way overrated when you get outside of Holywood, and culturely segregated to a far greater degree than Houston. As to first stops, they are usually almost always on Broadway, or, if produced in LA, there. But I would rather see another criteria used to measure theater district influence, personally. old windy bear 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jleon is right. Anyone can come up with a slick statistic like 'concentrated seats in a downtown area per capita'. The point of Wikipedia is to use solid information, not iffy factoids. old windy bear, it's wonderful you feel such pride for Houston. Some people love it and some people hate it. Best to leave personal preference out of it. With something as subjective as a 'cultural scene' it seems best to describe it using reasonable parameters. This is admittedly difficult to do. What's the best criteria: Dollars spent on tickets? Audience attendance? Number of art galleries? You could criticize each one of these. If you stick more with generalities, grounded in some factual basis, you avoid pitfalls like suggesting a place is 'the second most important in the nation' etc. Also, regarding Broadway tours: Chicago, Boston, and LA (but especially Boston) are the traditional locations for first runs, often even before NYC. This is because they have well-established show biz infrastructure, strong theater scenes, and influence with media and theater critics, but aren't nearly as expensive as NYC. Hate to say it, but Houston just isn't part of that picture, and nor is Las Vegas despite the major show biz industry there. But the bigger point is that theater in general may not be the best single metric to describe a 'cultural scene.'Mfk91 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mfk91 Don't pass out from shock, but I agree with you that slick statistics and personal preferences should not weigh as criteria in an encyclopedia article. What I was trying to say - and I think you would agree with me, is that there ought to be some other gauges as to the cultural vitality of a city other than the opening of shows, or ANY single event or (I like your phrase and warn you, I am going to steal and use it!) slick statistics. All I meant in praising it when I lived there, was that the cultural diversity was the most expressive I had seen in this country. (in the world, I happen to like Amsterdam, and Paris over London and Berlin -- others would disagree; Rome is a in a class by itself, mostly because of the sheer overwhelming sense of history) But yes, I agre with you, personal preferences, and slick statistics should not weigh - but I don't think theater openings should either, at least as the sole barometer. I happen to agree with RJN on the general issue, but there ought to be a better gauge to decide than either number of seats, or number of openings either! BOTH are "slick statistics." old windy bear 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

RJN, if you think 40 miles is a short distance, you must really be addicted to sitting in your car. I guess that goes hand in hand with loving Houston?128.138.44.10 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the beach is close to the city. Downtown is 40 miles. The Clear Lake/NASA area is 28 miles from the beach. Not a short distance, but still close enough for a pleasant drive to the sunny beaches of Galveston. 128.249.189.249 13:42, 30 January 2006 (CST)

It's 45 minutes (less if traffic's light) from the doorstep of my family home in Pasadena to the seawall. Pretty short drive if you ask me, considering that the drive from, say, Iowa, would be a lot farther. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you consider 45 minutes from city that isn't Houston to be close to the beach. How do we describe cities like Santa Monica, California in terms of their proximity to the beach? Would you also say that Pasadena is near downtown Houston? If so, how do you describe neighborhoods (inner loop areas such as River Oaks, Upper Kirby, etc) in terms of their proximity to downtown? Obviously, "near" is a subjective term open to personal interpretation and tolerances but I think "nearby" genearally mean ~5 miles at most and "adjacent" if something is so close that you could easily walk there. Dbchip 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Pasadena IS near downtown Houston. Ten minutes and I'm there. It shares a border with Houston. To the rest, this is straining at gnats. Houston is "near the beach" -- as a generic descriptor -- by pretty much anyone's standards. If you want to say "a quick drive" instead, that's fine, it's really not worth quibbling over. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pasadena is not near downtown (13 miles). Neighborhoods that are adjacent downtown include the Heights, Midtown, and Montrose (3 miles) whereas neighborhoods that are nearby include Avalon, River Oaks, Upper Kirby, etc (4 miles). If you consider Pasadena near Downtown Houston, then how do you describe neighborhoods such as those that are 10 miles closer? Same goes for Houston and the beach -- what about cities that are truly on the beach without driving in your car at 70mph for 45min? Things can be relatively "nearby" on the basis of comparison to other things that are nearby. For example, people consider a flight from New York to London as being a "short flight to Europe" because it is in comparison to, say, Los Angeles to Paris. You can't claim that Houston is near the beach if other cities (especially ones closer to the same beach) are significatly more "nearby." The same goes for Pearland, which is a city by a different name that is 15 miles away when probably 1.5M people reside closer to downtown.

10 minutes. You are a very fast driver. Houston to Pearland is 16.5 miles. Thats 96 MPH. Quick drive indeed. Tycoonjack 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but maps miss much. Of course, I simply speak from a lifetime of driving around the place, what do I know? By your strange logic, of course, Pearland's article couldn't say it's close to the beach, because League City is closer. What sort of argument is this? For the record, I don't mind if Pearland's article says it, too, is close to the beach. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this has to do with one's perception of space, which probably differs a lot depending on what part of the country you are in. In New York, no one would ever say a neighborhood is "near" Midtown Manhattan if it was 13 miles away, but perhaps in Texas thats considered a short distance. Houston has a very low population density (even by Sunbelt standards), and people very rarely walk to wherever their going, so perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt when things are described as being "nearby." --Jleon 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's all about relative space and expectations. Houston is a car-depenent city and exceedingly far-flung. Ask an average Houstonian what they think about a 45 minute drive, and they'll tell you "oh, that's not that far." That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of massaging to the effect of something like ... "Neighboring Galveston Island is a popular vacation destination for Houstonians," or something like that, which takes the emphasis off of proximity (or perceptions thereof) and instead places it on local usage. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your comments, you're actually trying to justify all the neighboring cities as being part of Houston, which they really aren't. Your perceptions of Houston seeem to be warped by living outside the city and having friends that do likewise. I've lived here for a total of about fifteen years and can't imagine trying to convince anyone that lives here that 45 minutes is a reasonable drive. Where would you even go? I live about five miles from downtown and the furthest I would ever drive is IAH or HOU, both of which are <30min and outside of both the loop and the beltway. Maybe if you're driving from Pearland to Katy or something, it takes a long time, but there's a reason that both of those cities have different names. I concur with Jleon and on that note, New York doesn't include information about what it's like to live in New Jersey or Connecticut and commute to Manhattan; I don't see why Houston should include information on what it's like to live in places outside the city. Maybe add the 45 minute driving comments to Pearland,_Texas. As far as Galveston, it isn't a popular vacation destination; the tourism industry there is quite small. However, I think you're on the right track with referring to neighboring Galveston as a city on the beach. Dbchip 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So my perceptions are warped by my geographical location, but yours aren't? Interesting. I was born and raised in Houston and lived there until I moved away a few years ago (that's 22 years if you're counting), plus my entire family has lived there since about 1950 and still does -- from Pasadena and Clear Lake and Pearland to Sugar Land to The Woodlands to Montrose and the Heights. I think that about covers it. (If we're going to measure dicks, let's just get it all out there.) Galveston is and always has been a vacation destination for Houstonians; that you argue otherwise is completely laughable. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You realize that Pasadena, Clear Lake, Pearland, Sugar Land, and The Woodlands (well, they are special) are neighboring cities with their own local governments, while Montrose and the Heights are just neighborhoods. I can not imagine telling anyone that lives in Houston that it is only a 45 minute drive, and they would say that's not far, unless of course they live in one of the neighboring cities, such as Katy or Sugarland. Tycoonjack 01:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

TycoonJack, Clear Lake City is a part of Houston ("Clear Lake" can refer to Clear Lake City or to a few neighboring suburbs, e.g. League City). Which brings the point: from where in Houston? Houston's city limits extend so far. A drive to Galveston from Clear Lake City is much shorter than a drive from Spring Branch to Galveston. WhisperToMe 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Language

Well, I am not going to provoke an edit war but I do hope that we can say what we need to say without being tasteless. Furthermore, here is what Wikipedia says about censoring comments . . .

"Removing uncivil comments Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words) Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on) Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user) Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (requires technical help) Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (requires technical help) Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)"

I hate to sound like a moral compass but I stand by my decision to remove the words in question--particularly the "di" word-- just as I stand by my decision not to press the issue further. Katefan0 is an adult and a indespensable contributor to this page. I just thought things got a little icky.Dinobrya

The guideline on removing personal attacks is also heavily disputed and generally only acceptable in the most egregious of personal attacks. Sorry you were offended, but Wikipedia isn't censored, and I wasn't attacking anybody. Let's all try to get back to talkign content again instead of the finer points of Miss Manners. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said what I needed to say. That was a textbook example of what not to say. Just because none of us should aspire to be "Miss Manners" {a comment I find directed towards me} does not mean that we should not have manners. BTW, I much prefer "Mr. Manners" {lol}. "Offensive" in the context of the above and quoted passage can mean more than an attack levied against an individual. I do not see anything that would indicate that Wikipedia is completely uncensored. From my reading of the Wikipedia rules, such language is clearly frowned upon but I said that I would not strike it out again. So as far as I am concerned . . . WE ARE COOL. Dinobrya

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. As for the rest, glad to hear it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right . . . Well, I hit a link or two from the above link and found this: [4]. Which includes the following: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." There is no question in my mind that other words could have been used. As I have said several times before, however, I will not touch those words again. I am content to agree to disagree. Having said that, I am more than willing to return serve on challenges to the decision I made a few days ago. Dinobrya

Key word here is article. That refers to an article text, not to discussions between adults on talk pages. If you can't handle someone saying "Oh fuck!" then you may find this a difficult place to inhabit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can figure out what places I can inhabit--especially after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 {lol}. I would much rather focus on this talk page and the article rather than whether or not I belong here. I am not going anywhere.

I also anticipated the argument article as opposed to talk would come up. It is the same argument that I would have for the link ::Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.It does not say "talk page", it says "article". I simply addressed a tangential reference with another tangetial reference. The above link pertains not to language on talk pages but to the explicit nature of some of the articles that are on Wikipedia. It would only be natural, for example, that there would be sexual language, sexual act, or nudity on an article about pornography. However, that link was checked by the link that I brought into the discussion, which essentially said that anyone who includes profanity and obscenity in article must take into account how appropriate the material included is. Naturally, a picture with two people engaged in a sexual act on an article about "My Little Pony" or the "Cabbage Patch Kids" would be very difficult to defend. The only reason of including explicit material in such a case is to be encyclopedic. We are still cool, I am not making additional edits to the words in question, and I remain not convinced. White's Move {wink}. Dinobrya.

Once again. Wikipedia isn't censored, either for minors or for adults who Inhale Sharply at a curse word. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 08:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia does have standards of decency. I do not think pointed insults such as "Miss Manners" or "adults who inhale sharply at a curse word" does anything to dispute what I brought up. I find no use in sarcastic quips. When I struck that phrase down, I wished no ill will towards the one who wrote it. In fact, I am quite impressed with her(?)as a contributor. I did what I honestly felt was right. I felt and still do feel that the passages I quoted backed me up on that. The "F-Word" as an adjective is one thing, measuring genitalia, although a clever way of putting things, is quite another. The only reason I did not pursue it further was that I reasoned that there were worse things that could have been said. Despite recent caricatures of me, I am no Ned Flanders nor do I run a laundry mat for dirty mouths. Had the language been overwhelmingly obscene, however, I would have pursue the issue more aggressively and could have cared less what would have been said. Dinobrya

I found it rather funny... Urban909

Houston MLS Logo and name... 1836 it is

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/soc/3609485.html

Logo and name leaked before the press conference. Here it is:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/drludicrous/hou_lg.gif

Time to update the sports section. SteelyDave 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertising?

Content was recently added that (to me) appears to be promotional materials for ADV Films and Swishahouse studios...complete with company logos, artists and product lists. I removed the edits and realized that other readers may not consider this advertising. I restored the section. Your opinion? Postoak 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I might be biased more towards rap than anime, I feel that in Houston you hear more people banging screw and rap in general, especially versus most other cities, than the anime subculture that one might see. Tycoonjack 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go down the road of getting into logos, artists or product lists, especially since there's a Swishahouse article, but screwed music is really popular there and I hear references to Swishahouse a lot. I was home a few months ago, shooting pool at a Slick Willie's, and when the DJ mentioned Swishahouse by name, a cheer went up. It's not a passing fad in Houston or a small concern, so I think it deserves mention. Not logos, artists or product lines, though. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a picture of the whole skyline with Post oak, Greenway plaza, Downtown all tied in together wold be nice to see.Robbyfoxxxx 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

109 F

I'm, not sure that we needed a source for the 109 F claim. It can be easily verified at http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KIAH/2000/9/4/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA for interested parties. I just didn't want to clutter the bottom of the main page with sources in an already long article. Any disagreements? 24.175.64.6