A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 22, 2004, September 22, 2005, September 22, 2006, September 22, 2007, September 22, 2008, and September 22, 2009.

Contents 1 Obvious bias 2 Merge 3 Cleanup 4 Inappropriate picture 5 Ungrammatical title 6 Original Research 7 OR

[edit] Obvious bias

Even as someone who would probably be classed as an "addict", these lines seem pretty biased against car free days to me: "As often as not this meant thrusting the poor souls into a no-choice situation, at least for a time. In this particular instance the proposed "treatment" was to find an answer to the following question in three main parts:" Emphasis is mine. 75.150.104.17 (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Carfree day is another article that describes this day. Anyone interested in merging the two, please do so. --Howcheng 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Today I made various changes that I felt would help to remove biased statements in the article. Most notably, I amended a section on the definition of "car free" and removed a section that was basically one person's assessment of car free days over the past decade, which has no place in an encyclopedia definition. - Randall Ghent (Aug. 15, 2006)

[edit] Cleanup

This article needs a serious cleanup and reorganization. For example, using references.Canaima 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate picture

The picture accompanying this article (left) is of a main road full of cars. What has that got to do with Car Free Days? Can somebody provide a better photo? TiffaF 13:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiffa, in Bogotá, since the Car Free Day is held on Thursday, public transportation, including taxis (which are yellow here), are allowed. Anyway, I don't know if this picture (right) maybe more appropriate. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

so in Bogota, taxis are not cars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.12.36 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one do much perfer the option provided by Julián Ortega. It seems much more indicative of the events. I'm going to change it. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ungrammatical title

Shouldn't that be "Car-Free Day" (with a hyphen), to avoid the implication that Europe and Canada are giving away free cars? See WP:HYPHEN, paragraph 3: "Sometimes the hyphen helps with disambiguation (little-used car, not a reference to the size of a used car)." Unimaginative Username 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

This article needs references, that does not mean that it is entirely or largely original research. A recent edit deleted almost the entire article, claiming it was all original research. I don't want to see that happen, and it's the opposite of progress. The OR tag was only added two days ago by an anon, with no notes explaining it here. I think there may be some OR mixed in with this article, but it's certainly not the main content. It is far to soon to delete the entire page. I think the article contains a great deal of good information, and while it needs improvements, such improvements are do-able. So I reverted the edit. Please talk about it here before making major changes like deleting an entire article's content.--Keithonearth (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OR

This article is full of original research. Since my removing of the original research was contested, I have now placed {{citation needed}} tags, at the end of every paragraph. If in one week, no efforts to place any references, where they were asked, the information will be removed. I am willing to give more time, only if references are being added. warrior4321 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely needs some more citations, it would be a better article with them. However your approach, User:Warrior4321, to getting more citations by tagging every non-contentious statement in the article seems the opposite of constructive. Your 80 {{citation needed}} tags in an article of this length is truly and extremely excessive. And your whole approach seems to me to be very non-collaborative. Sure we are all trying to make wikipedia better, but laying down arbitrary deadlines doesn't help others do a better job and it doesn't help this article get better. (nor does deleting the entior article as you've done in the past) --Keithonearth (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In the {{unreferenced}} temple, it clearly says that unsourced material may be challenged and removed. I have pointed out, which paragraphs and materials need citations. I have not given any unreasonable deadlines, and if you feel that you need more time to add citations, I stated I would give more time. However, not giving a deadline means that the challenged unsourced material could stay forever. This article contains a whole load of original research :

1. In the how it works section, there is text like
   1. To spend one carefully prepared day without cars.
   2. Is it possible to get drivers out of their cars in one or more cities...
   3. Carfree days are also held in many US cities, such as Portland, Or., and in Japan

Who has said this? It would seem that the author of the article has written this in their own personal view of the event. Therefore, I tried to remove the original research. Since, it was contested, provide citations for the unreferenced material or it goes. I am flexible on the amount of time provided, but only if references are actually being located. It doesn't make sense to just keep on waiting for references, if they will not come. Therefore, it can be removed, and when someone wants to add the references, they can add the information again. warrior4321 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

agree with comments by Keithonearth - the article needs a lot of improvement but contributions by User:Warrior4321 were not nearly constructive. In some occasions {{citation needed}} tags were placed after links to other wikipedia pages which provided references, such as: In town, without my car!. In other instances each line of a paragraph was taged although is evident that the information is from one source, since the lines are bullet points of a list. I suggest the best way forward is to improve the article by adding meaningful information and improving its structure concomitantly with cleanup. Elekhh (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)