Talk:Tukwila, Washington

Pronunciation

Pronuciation is tuck-WILL-a, not tuh-KWILL-a? kwami (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so: see http://www.stevensauke.com/say/northwest.html — Myasuda (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos

There are a number of photos of some Tukwila landmarks at Commons, but an article like this really needs at least one photo, preferably several, that give some sense of what the town looks like. The skyline, the cityscape, the main drag, that sort of thing. There are other city articles in the Seattle area that also need these sort of photos added. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Crime section

The crime section is awful, it's based on an industry blog using FBI data beyond its purpose. If it should exist it should be completely rewritten.76.174.81.47 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Because you think something should be rewritten is not a valid reason to remove it in its entirety, especially the sourced FBI data itself. Continue to remove cited content because you don't like it and you will very likely be blocked from editing. In the mean time, please review the revised text, which more accurately describes (with updated sources) what organization gave Tukwila the designation and why. The annual SafeWise report is often cited in media reports and is notable.General Ization ^Talk 18:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it notable? Do marginal click-bait stories make it noteable or do you?76.174.81.47 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected. You don't get to remove properly-sourced, notable content just because you don't like it or understand why it's useful. For an explanation of notability, see WP:GNG. General Ization ^Talk 20:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced. How is a low quality piece by a company selling fear appropriate? Adding content from Safewise is only possible for pages of smaller cities with few people involved. I think you should take a moment to see WP:IRS and WP:IS 76.174.81.47 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no lack of reliable sources that report on the 2016 Safewise designation of Tukwila, including the KING-TV report cited in the article. But if you'd like more: KOMO News [1]; KCPQ/Q13FOX [2]; and even the Seattle Globalist entry mentioned below, which, though it disputes Safewise's findings, still contributes to their notability. I think you're misapplying WP:RS here, when you're intending to challenge the designation, not the sources that reported on it. General Ization ^Talk 22:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm confused. I'll try and back up.

A blog that sells home security products makes an alarming claim about a small city and news entities from the nearby metro run unresistable headlines for clicks like "What? Tukwila is second most dangerous city in the country?" and then proceed to explain that no, that's not the case at all -- and this belongs in an encyclopedia?

How significant is that blog post and how much weight does it deserve? Should it always be there?76.174.81.47 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

General Ization answered that above. The blog probably isn't itself very significant. Here's where the WP:RELIABLE comes into play: it received coverage from multiple sources. That's why I propose splitting the difference by mentioning the ranking, supported by several sources, then noting the response, citing sources. Limit the whole business to two to three sentences. Doesn't merit more than that. Just a suggestion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I went through the pages of every single city on that list and not one included a word about this list. In fact, the only use of the word "dangerous" refers to air pollution in SLC. I disagree with your assessment that a marginal source claiming something and a legitimate source disputing it makes it noteworthy. Do you think Paris' entry should include the "no go zones"? It's not difficult to find many articles talking about them along with a great deal of very reputable sites disputing the story.76.174.81.47 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected this article for one week. IP 76.174.81.47 and User General Ization need to discuss the content. I suggest WP:ANEW as a resolution board. It's obvious you both disagree on the content, but Generalization is correct in that content cannot just be repeatedly deleted without cause, and without further discussion on this talk page. Also, please read WP:3RR. Please take this to the edit warring resolution board. — Maile (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts from a passer-by. Though I'm not crazy about five-year old data, there doesn't appear to be a compelling rationale to delete the crime statistics, and the 2016 story naming the city as the nation's most dangerous is a notable mention. The second paragraph appears to have been added on to explain, or mitigate, the crime statistics. It's not sourced, looks like original research, and ought to be removed until and unless some references are added. There are other little promotional tidbits here that can go: A long history of vibrant personalities and a (not so) famous magician, for instance. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's a printed 'rebuttal': [3], which can be added, though I'd suggest that rationale on both sides be limited to a sentence or two, lest the whole business become WP:UNDUE. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I considered removing the unsourced OR you mentioned, but decided instead to add the {{citation needed}} tags and give someone time to find sources to support the statements. I also thought since the unsourced statements are seemingly intended to offer an alternative explanation for the stats mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and we are engaged in the current dispute, it might appear to be WP:UNDUE to do so at this time. General Ization ^Talk 21:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there is a source for the explanation, as linked above, but again, I think giving the initial report or the pushback too much attention would be unnecessary. A sentence or two each way does the job. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Neighborhood income levels

Is this meaningful? Is there a good way to classify it?Everett3 (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Culture section

Vibrant personalities? Marital sex euphemisms?Everett3 (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)