Talk:Detroit/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Segregation section deleted reasons

Someone added a completely new section titled Segregation and it deals with the socioeconomic and racial divisions with Metro Detroit (I guess? At least I think that's what the paragraph is trying to talk about). I deleted it because it was offering no refs outside citing some facts that really were inadequate in supporting the idea. Some effort should be made in dealing with this issue to connect it with the other wikipedia topics such as white flight and gentrification, and to begin it with "By any definition, the gulf between black and white is as wide or wider in Metro Detroit neighborhoods than any metropolitan region in the nation" is extremely poor writing, it is praeteritio and in fact is just wrong. The stupidest animal knows that there are completely segregated neighbourhoods in many regions- places where no blacks or no whites live. If the point is that Detroit has the highest concentration of African-Americans, then one sentence is needed and can be inserted somewhere else. If the topic is about racial divisions then much greater effort should be made to explain why Detroit has developed in this manner and why it persists. To label it segregation is very loaded too, it is too strong a term when compared to the legalized segregation of the American past, and fails to convey the complexity of the issue in Detroit. --Mikerussell 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but a better way to deal with such material is to edit it, clean it up, and, if no sources are offered, tag it. Chances are the user is using legitimate statistics, but hasn't included the source. If sources fail to be provided in a reasonable period of time, we can always delete it.--Loodog 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can show me anywhere in wikipedia that you allow unsourced material to satnd in an article; moreover, poorly written and unsourced in a Feature Article even (as opposed to stub) then please do. You delete crap and let the author fix it later; I have a hard time telling what exactly the person wants to say so how can anyone "clean it up'? It reads like an attempt to characterize the city unfairly in my opinion and thus should be deleted now.--Mikerussell 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I've left the author a note explaining that sources are needed so (s)he won't be discouraged from editing in the future. Go ahead and remove it, but we'll take more time on this if the author provides sources next time.--Loodog 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Racial tension and segregation is a big factor in Detroit. 69.209.140.145 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Most dangerous city

I used to live here and I think the fact that Detroit is ranked as the most dangerous city in the country by CQ Press is relevent to add. Would anyone object if I add this to the crime section (w/ ref)? Burner0718 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything notable and sourced should be included.--Loodog (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is well sourced I have no objections. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I will. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The CQ report has been discredited by the FBI, the American Society of Criminologists (which has denounced it as an irresponsible use of crime statistics), the US conference of Mayors, and many police chiefs. The CQ report is not noteworthy, it is discussed the sub article.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a source for it discrediting?--Loodog (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think it should be removed, tell me why it should. I think it should stay in because despite it being "discredited", lots of people still pay attention to them. Having lived here before, I'd like Detroit to improve as much as the next guy, but I know how bad it is and I believe it belongs. Thank you. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The CQ report has been discredited by the FBI, the American Society of Criminologists which has passsed a resolution against the report (and denounced it as an irresponsible use of crime statistics), the US conference of Mayors has challenged it, as well as many police chiefs.(Criminologists Condemn City crime rankings (11/16/2007 PRNewswire). These organizations do not consider it noteworthy, but seriously flawed enough to publically come out against it; however, it is discussed in the sub-article on crime. Responsible sources are no longer citing the report without mentioning that it is discredited. The FBI recommends against use of its crime statistics for the direct comparison of cities as Morgan Quitno/CQ does in its "Most Dangerous Cities" rankings.[1] This is due to the many variables that influence crime in a particular study area such as population density and the degree of urbanization, modes of transportation of highway system, economic conditions, and citizens' attitudes toward crime.(FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Summary) In November 2007, the executive board of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) approved a resolution opposing the development of city crime rankings from FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs). The resolution states the rankings "represent an irresponsible misuse of the data and do groundless harm to many communities" and "work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public.[2] The U.S. Conference of Mayors has criticized the "Most Dangerous Cities" list, saying the annual city-by-city crime rankings are "distorted and damaging to cities' reputations.[3]. In October 2007, the American Society of Criminology, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation requested that the publisher reconsider the promotion of the book — specifically, "their inaccurate and inflammatory press release labeling cities as 'safest' and 'most dangerous'" — because the rankings are "baseless and damaging. [4].Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you're right. Never mind. But me and every other person who lives or has lived or even visited here knows how bad it is. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what many don't realize is that the Detroit area is a multi-boundaried and varied region without radial symmetry which can distort comparisons. The types of crimes can distort comparions. Eg. Drug related crimes which affect isolated areas might distort comparisons while affecting primarly those particular sections. Detroit has many great neighorhoods though. Police chiefs have taken issue as well.[5] Many cities or regions have high crime sections. Detroit's crime has dropped dramatically and continues to improve.[6] The recent Social Compact study found Detroit's demographic trends to be significantly improved from the 2000 census.[7]. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Detroit a pretty bad city. The crime rate isn't getting better as fast people would like to believe, as detroits crime rate is still higher than places like san franscico (although that place has it's own problems). Personally, if it's referenced properly, it needs to be in there. Kimu (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, the information about the crime rate here can be depicted in any number of potentially biased ways. Going to a (hopefully) objective comparison, I googled "worst crime city". From their arbitrariness, we can take the resulting rankings to be unbiased. The first result doesn't mention Detroit. The second source calls Detroit the #1 most dangerous. The third doesn't mention crime. The 4th gives Detroit the 9th highest violent crime rate. The 5th and 6th are forums. The 7th is about NYC. The 8th, puts Detroit as at least 6th worst. Clearly, the objective crime statistics in Detroit are something to be mentioned, without excuses.

Tom, all these things you mention about Detroit being a multibordered region without radial symmetry, is just as true as the next city. And in cases that it isn't, you're explaining (OR) statistics, not reporting them. Then you mention the situation as "improving". You're certainly welcome to include that in the article, but the rate of change of crime has nothing to do with the level itself, which is the more relevant quantity.--Loodog (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Every city has good neighborhoods and bad ones. The objective crime statistics include all of it.--Loodog (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and please consider that Detroit is the most affected place in the recent forceclosure crisis, as well as the automobile industry downturn. Zero (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Surrounding Municipalities?

The surrounding municipalities seem really inaccurate. Isn't this section intended to list directly adjacent municipalities? Ann Arbor is indeed west of Detroit, but an awful long way to be included here, especially before Livonia. Lake Erie is south, but a long way south. --Locano (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Erie is only about 15 miles away. Rmhermen (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm trying to get us past some claims like "powerhouse" "high energy rock" "top venues" -- how do we substantiate such claims? The encyclopedia isn't for promoting tourism, it's for recording fact and consensus. If we can establish it as simple, sober fact, or universally recognized consensus, that the city is particularly noted for its avid hockey fans, cool -- I lived there for twenty years, and didn't think it was especially ahead of St. Louis with its Blues. But this is not the place for promotion and boosterism. DavidOaks (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The St. Louis Blues? Huh? You really choose a poor example there, St. Louis almost became the Saskatoon Blues several decades ago; they only entered the NHL in 1967 (Detroit is an original 6 team) and the team's fan base cannot be said to be "ahead" of Detroit, whatever that means excatly. Factually they always trail Detroit for attendence, hear is some "fact" NHL attendence--Mike Russell 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to get into a revert war, but a CITY doesn't have a "marque," nor a "panorama," and we would need to figure out exactly how particular neighborhoods "contribute to quality of life," in a sense that isn't just as legitimately asserted for particular flowerbeds at particular streetcorners, or a good supply of Starbucks and any other pleasant thing one can think of. It's not meaningful. If an area is "reclaimed," that's a loaded expresion -- the previous users might dispute that. The "dominance" of live music is hard to maintain against the variety of other things that participate in a city's nightlife -- the idea is to remain in the realm of objective, verifiable statements. This stuff should not be restored until it can be reliably sourced as fact. Moreover -- the various styles of architecture co-exsit -- to assert that they blend is to claim an aesthetic harmony which is frankly in dispute. To say the city spawned a particular flavor of R&R is also a claim very much in need of sourcing; to call that style "energetic" is hard to make sense of -- the rest of Rock isn't energetic? I mean, there's a long list of really quite minor adjustments that were made to render the thing more objective and factual. DavidOaks (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured article; you need to be careful when you attempt to criticize its content because it has been judged as one of wikipedia's best. Obviously articles change even hourly, but you are just expressing your own personal point of view, if not nit-picky ignorance. As far as music- well when Rolling Stone magazine did an anniversery issue they looked at Detroit as a major US music center along with NY and LA. every city has its own unique history and success and failures, this "consensus" and "objectivity" does not mean mutilation to satisfy a bland, neutured taste for prose and description. You need to do a much better job of expressing your perceived lack of NPOV to carry the article in your direction. Good writing style should not punished.--Mike Russell 11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem misinformed about the area. We'll find references overtime for the some of the content for which you are concerned. While your edits may be in good faith, you seem unfamiliar with the terms of art in particular fields. Reclaimed is the proper term, eminent domain has been used to reclaim much of the land, its been an ongoing event. The author of the music section also used the correct term, a Detroit genre was "high energy rock" in the late 1960s and 1970s. The writers of the music section are also correct that live music has been a dominant feature of the city's nightlife, the Motown moniker is recognized worldwide. Authors cite the Renaissance Center as defining the city's skyline, its also frequently used as a 'marque' of the city skyline. Revitalized and well maintained neighborhoods have enhanced the quality of life in the city. There has been a wealth of news stories on the city's revitalization. The Comerica Tower was designed to blend with the city's historic skyline. The description is accurate. Detroit's skyline is also recognized as one of the panoramic waterfront skylines, while others may be for mountains, valleys, as so on. While your edits may be in good faith, they have the effect of distorting or obfuscating some of legitimate content message.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources will be great. More focused expression will help, too. There's a difference between "blends in with" (an aesthetic judgment, subject to strong disagreement) and "was designed to blend in with" -- your revised version is an improvement. A marque is a marketing concept, and if there is a marketing organization that intends to design a skyline, they should be named. Instead of wholesale reversion, work through the points where you differ with my alterations one at a time, and we'll build consensus. I'm sure your efforts too are in good faith, but they have the effect of creating promotional literature rather than encyclopedic reporting. DavidOaks (talk)

"Promotional material" is really an expression of extreme POV, and could not be stated as pertaining justifiably to this article. You have to measure your own tendency to dismiss the quality of the article as somehow indicative an attemopt to distort the truth of the information made available herein. You really have presented very little substantive "fact" and it strikes me your comments just run up against your own percieved views of the city and region.--Mike Russell 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when this article was overly negative and a balance had been reached. Most of your current revisions are fine. A few of the sentences of concern to you were aimed at being clear, sharp, concise and more readable, not 'promotional'. Simply stated, a postive fact is not a bad thing. These articles should be interesting for the reader. A 'marque' can be marketing, but it is not necessarily so. The term is appropriate and probably should have been phrased as 'marque of skyscrapers' but your re-wording is fine. The architectural point being the historic skyline's description along side the Renaissance Center has in effect become a reconized 'marque of skycrapers'. The statement that the architecture of the city is among the finest is from the sourced content review. The statement on 'millions of visitors' is from the sourced content. The article has been very careful about making claims and the article is one of the best of its type as one of the more well sourced. The idea has been to write it in an interesting way that is not a long drawn out explanation which will not be read. The wholesale reversion you note had a few changes, but the thought was that the changes should be rephrased. The writer of the top live music venues statement probably got it from Pollstar, though the statistics change and probably need to be updated (those venues have the credibilty to make such claims). The statement someone added that 'corrupt politicians and crumbling business contribute to heavy criminal activity' is speculative and probably inaccurate. The city's claims are that the worst crime is often drug related and that the crime has been in certain areas of the city and not necessarily citywide. The city has been critical of broadsweeping generalizations about its crime figures. Revitalized and existing well maintained neighborhoods have contibuted to the quality of life in the city - the media has reported on some of them. An AP report on the postitive impact of Detroit's revitalized Mexicantown recently circulated nationally.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, sounds like we're getting nearer consensus. However, I still think we need to distinguish between a statement presented as fact -- "Detroit's archtiecture is regarded as some of the finest" etc. -- and the citing of opinion ""American Architecture Magazine identifiies Detroit's skyline as a model for the contemporary American City" (citation) -- I'm making that up, but you get the idea. Similarly with claims of revitalization -- it's not a meanignful claim at the level of fact, but it's possible to make a factual claim that efforts were made to revitalize a neighborhood, or that a particular source claimed "quality of life" improved (leaving the way open of course, for counter-views -- a good example is the fact that not everybody regards gentrification as progress). Yeah, it can slow down the reading, but if the choice really is between that and precision, anencyclopedia chooses precision.DavidOaks (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine to specify. Besides the 2005 work cited for the city's architecture as among America's finest, the Historic Preservation Trust's recognition status evidenced its importance, the statement was certainly sourced. Some of Detoit's skysrapers are also National Historic Landmarks. Certainly welcome suggestions for better phrases, not sure of your reasons for not preferring the phrase "quality of life" in the mild context used, but we can come up with another phrase if you like. The phrase "quality of life in context is clear, concise, and accurate, for the reader its serves as an effective conveyance of the economic effects of revitalization and an improved/restored impact. Sources are even more positive with uses as "high quality of life" noted for example by the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation [8] and "great quality of life" noted by the National Trails Training Partnership [9]. While it may be ok to mention counter points/criticisms, the gentrification critics have a weak case anyway, as evidenced by Mexicantown's revitalization with increased economic activity and an improved environment. Revitalized urban high rises, by nature, may command higher prices, as can revitalized 19th century mansions, thats simply a normal market condition. Other city's have similarly positive experiences with revitalizations, it appears there is little dispute about the positive effects. In America's cities, its generally known that revitalization is an effort to improve/restore. If the lack of revitalization/well maintained areas would generally be concern then it follows that revitalization is generally a positive. Detroit revitalizations are a significant topic with many references to them.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DavidOaks, I had similar problems with the POV of the article, but it's better than it used to be. See Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive3 starting with "Reason for the Ad tag". They've done a pretty good job of stripping it to factual sourced material. Still, I'd like to see a much smaller tourism section, especially considering that everything has been duplicated in Tourism in metropolitan Detroit. Take a look at the New York City article. They've got three times as much tourism and they've got it pared down to one small paragraph in the economy section. The Boston, Massachusetts has more visitors, but doesn't mention tourism except as a component of the economy. Los Angeles also has a single paragraph dedicated to "landmarks" and that's it. Philadelphia has a small section on shopping. I believe the New York/LA way to do it is the best.--Loodog (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other nickname

I had heard this name on Hockey Night in Canada(tv show) and I was wondering if it was a real nickname for the city of detroit, it was referred to as the "Mile High City", anybody know anymore details about this? I didn't see it in the nicknames portion of the detroit article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghyslyn (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Highly dubious, seeing as how that's one of the most recognizable nicknames ever and it refers to Denver, Colorado, based on altitude--Loodog (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I add "Hockeytown" to the list of nicknames for Detroit?Ghyslyn (talk —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Best Place to Retire?!

My eyes just about popped out of my head when I saw that in the last paragraph of the "Economy" section. Sure enough, when I read the cited reference, that wasn't what the article was saying at all. They are looking at 30 of the nation's largest urban areas and seeing which neighborhood in each city is the best to retire in (a few cities have more than one neighborhood listed). "Downtown" is the pick for Detroit. I hope we can all agree that this is NOT the same as "Detroit was named among the best big cities to retire by CNN Money Magazine editors" !

I would delete that sentence, but then I'm not sure how to redo the paragraph, and I don't want to take the whole paragraph out. Hopefully, someone can fix it. TresÁrboles (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and misleading addition

“ ...the feasibility of a Detroit-Ann Arbor commuter line,[115] which would service the nearly 100,000 daily commuters between the two regional hubs. ”

1. There is absolutely no source supporting the figure of 100,000, even if there are that many commuters in the area.
2. The language makes it sound like the system would have a ridership of 100,000, which as I've said in edit summaries, is absurd. You can be "serviced" by actually riding the rail, or just having it available to you — hence the ambiguity.

Propose change to (assuming someone finds a source for the 100,000 figure):

“ ...the feasibility of a Detroit-Ann Arbor commuter line,[115] which would [add an transportation option to/supplement the needs of] the nearly 100,000 daily commuters between the two regional hubs. ”

--Loodog (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Fifty-One

I hope some editors from here know how to improve The First Fifty-One! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

history section and other history consolidated

The government section does a good job of describing the government structure. Then it adds a few random recent history facts. This is not good writing.

I've moved some of these recent historical statements to the article's history section and trimmed a bit. So now the article has a dedicated government section which describes how government is structured and a dedicataed history section. I've also toned down the mayor' resignation so that it doesn't smear him.

Isn't that better prose? 903M (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kilpatrick's issue probably belongs in the govt section under politics and the mayor articles. The history section could not cover the life story of every mayor. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither can the government section cover every mayor. So we pick and chose. Kilpatrick is fair game but after 2 mayors, he may be fair game to eliminate. 903M (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)