Talk:Detroit/Archive 5

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Detroit, Michigan would be moved to Detroit. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Only major city north of Canada"

What about Seattle? Or any other 100,000+ city that's much farther north than Detroit? 24.14.156.34 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• But the Canadian border isn't directly south of any of those cities. DP76764 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that statement refers more to the peculiar shape of the border near Detroit than how far north it is. If you are in Detroit and want to see Windsor, you literally look south.--Loodog (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"If you are in Detroit and want to see Windsor, you literally look south" - that seems to be one of those folksy truths that don't belong on Wikipedia. If we're talking north in an encyclopedia sense, it should be latitude, not what one can see. 24.14.156.34 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is latitude. Windsor actually has a lower latitude than Detroit does. Windsor is physically closer to the equator.--Loodog (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

100% true. Look for yourself —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You people are infuriating. I'm not saying that Detroit isn't further north than Windsor. I'm saying it isn't the only city in this country with a population over 100k north of Canada. Seattle, for example. Jesus.24.14.156.34 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, but if you want to go to Canada from Seattle, you go north. Perhaps the statement could be a little clearer; "the shortest/most direct route to Canada is due south" or "Detroit is the only city from which you travel due south to reach Canada" DP76764 (Talk) 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you spoke less ambiguously, you wouldn't be furious. You're saying "it isn't the only city in this country with a population over 100k north of Canada". What you mean is "it isn't the only city in this country with a population over 100k north of some piece of' Canada". No. Of course not. Indeed, Anchorage is north of most of Canada. It doesn't matter. Detroit is the only major city due north of a piece of Canada, at the same longitude.--Loodog (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think using the major city/100k qualifier isn't relevant here. It's more important that it's not in Alaska. It would be better just to say that Detroit is one of the few US border cities/crossings in the lower 48 where one travels due south to enter Canada.Jsbrugg (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is more trivia type information rather than something that belongs on an encyclopedia. The space in the article could be put to much better use in writing about Detroit's severe urban decay, or the fact that a city that once bordered on 2 million people never built a subway/elevated system. Was that due to the auto-industry? hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, No subway/ "EL" SUCKS! and the DDOT/SMART Buses are...well I wouldn't step foot in one. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think...

...that maybe we could start a Detroit WikiProject? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For a new project, it should be called Wikiproject Metro Detroit, this would bring more participation and provide better coverage, just Detroit is too limiting. However, it may not be necessary since WikiProject Michigan is sufficient. It would be a good idea to have a Metro Detroit Portal. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading comprehension...

See Talk:Detroit,_Michigan/archive4#Best_Place_to_Retire.3F.21 .

The passage in question was then changed to say "In 2007, downtown Detroit was named among the best big city neighborhoods in which to retire by CNN Money Magazine editors." No, still wrong. I mean, it might be among the best big city neighborhoods, but the article doesn't say that! It says, "We looked at 30 of the nation's largest metro areas and found the right neighborhoods for you." In other words, there may be a thousand better neighborhoods, but downtown is the best one in Detroit. This is clearly different than what the passage said. I have now removed it, but I put a corrected version into the Neighborhoods section. TresÁrboles (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is also ranking the neighborhoods by major city according to their selected criteria (musuems, etc.) the cities are not in alphabetical order. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping Info Under The Rug

Why is it articles written about other American cities will list things such as accomplishments that have happened in that particular city, its good neighborhoods, crime, riots that have occured there, and so forth. But in the Detroit article all it seems to focus on is the good things that can be said: where the mansions are, how superb the downtown area is (when actually its probably just on par with downtown areas in other cities), and some of the other accomplishments the city has made in the last few years. Where are the paragraphs about how Detroit has lost half its popualtion?... down from a high of 1.8 million people? Or the fact it never started to build a subway or rapid transit elevated system, even when its population was nearing 2 million; and it had a high density rate. Is this because the auto industry is located in the city and they didn't want any competition from public transportation, so they swayed the local and state government away from that prospect? This would make very good reading. What about the mass urban decay that's in the residential neighborhoods? This is probably why the downtown area is mentioned so frequently because it may look nice when compared to the surrounding areas. There are also many reports of homeowners in the city limits stating it's difficult to sell their houses and their property values have dropped tremendously, and this was going on long before the current financial crisis. The 12th Street riots are mentioned but are not elaborated on, which it should be. The FBI states the city has the highest violent crimes out of all major cities. That needs to be mentioned. Its important to remember that telling the truth is not a knock against Detroit or anyone living in Detroit, its simply telling the truth. Wikipedia's function is to provide information, it is not here to try and advance an adgenda by leaving out or erasing information that is true, but people may not want to read about their city. When others pull up the Detroit article on Wikipedia, they should get a realistic sense of Detroit, and not go to the city and experience something totally different from what they have been reading. The truth must be told as it is now, and when things improve, tell the truth about how good it is. Don't wait until things improve to then give the details on how bad it "was". It really itsn't accurate to be able to read many negative aspects of other cities that actually have fewer negative aspects than Detroit, but read far fewer negative aspects on Detroit which actually has more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources for anything you say, it can of course be included.--Loodog (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your additional edit and again, that last thing we want is an inaccurate article. Any facts you have sources for would be appreciated in the article.--Loodog (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. This entire article is like reading a travel brochure. The 12th street riot and white flight deserve an entire section. Perhaps this article represents the idiots who live in, run, and have ruined this city.

The article has had a lot of push-&-pull between those who emphasize the negative and those who foreground the positive in the city; of course both are necessary to a real representation, and Loodog's right: credible sourcing is the key, along with balance that can be achieved by acknowledging both claim and counterclaim, by having sections on blight and unhappy chapters in city history (without which, "re-vitalization" would hardly seem necessary, right?) Consensus can only be achieved in a subject as contested as this one by good use of the talk page (unsigned editor above, this kind of name-calling is not a good use), as well as employing edit summaries to remain transparent about the nature and intent of a given change. We all get in a hurry and forget from time to time, but when there's so much argument about the essential nature of the subject, it really undermines the trust necessary to maintain Detroit at FA quality. DavidOaks (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a casual wikipedia reader, not an editor and I'm not bringing any sources, but *as* a reader (which most wikipedia users are) I think I can express an opinion without being told to sort it myself or shut up. I'm dismayed at how this article really does seem to be sweeping the grimmer aspects of Detroit under the carpet. There's not even mention of Michigan Central at the time of writing. 90.197.61.234 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sacred architecture

An excelent articel should mention at least the some historic sacred architecture.--217.224.82.214 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

wording

There's been a lot of back & forth for a long time, over the wording of a particular idea: "but has lost roughly half its population, while the metropolitan area has been increasing" vs. "has since seen a major shift in its population to the suburbs." I'm not a participant, but could those who apparently care please explain what's at stake (and also try to remember to use edit summaries)? DavidOaks (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before (and it seems someone removed this), after reading both options the best one is: "has lost roughly half its population, while the metropolitan area has been increasing". That's better than "has seen a major shift in its population to the suburbs". The first phrase takes into account that everyone who left Detroit didn't simply move to the suburbs. Some did, but others left Detroit altogether for other American cities. In turn, some people from other American cities came and settled in the Detroit suburbs. The second phrase doesn't imply this. It leans toward the notion that everyone who left Detroit went to its suburbs, which isn't true. Therefore, the first phrasing would be more accurate, and the article is suppose to provide the most accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians from Detroit, Michigan

Is there a category for Wikipedians from Detroit, Michigan ?Smallman12q (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote this page? I've lived in Detroit for 11 years, the information is from somebody who hasn't been to detroit or biased, an encyclopedia cannot have shred of bias in it, and one more thing, the white black analogies are NOT appropriate! USe the word african american, this page needs major editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.20.248 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Graduation rate

I heard a report in the media about the abysmal graduation rate recently and came here for more information. Why do you cite two articles that give the graduation rate as 30ish and 25ish percent but only give the official rate mentioned later on in the articlese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policker (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

References

For most things, each paragraph needs a reference. I see several unreferenced paragraphs. I also had to get rid of a non-RS-compliant source being used. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion needs more input

Despite being listed for a week on the Michican deletion sorting list, the deletion discussion regarding the Zone 8, Detroit article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zone 8, Detroit has failed to attract any input from members of the Michigan WikiProject (or indeed anyone other than myself and the nominator). Please read the Zone 8, Detroit article and then come and express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zone 8, Detroit. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries

For some reason, the edit history of this particular high-traffic article has four really striking characteristics:

• 1) lots of disagreements, sometimes amounting to edit-warring
• 2) lots of vandalism
• 3) lots of uncited, unref'd additions which may be WP:OR, or vandalism, or simply laziness/forgetfullness
• 4) an unusual reluctance to use edit summaries to explain what the editor is doing.

No one of these things is unusual. The combination is. That last one is really easy to correct, and will make the other three less troublesome. Please, folks, can we use edit summaries? It keeps things collegial and encyclopedic. DavidOaks (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Task force

I proposed the start of a Detroit task force here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Michigan#Detroit_task_force WhisperToMe (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Basra a sister city?

Is there any reference for Basra being a sister city of Detroit? It's been in the article for quite a while, but a Google search mainly finds pages that (mainly) mirror Wikipedia or are likely to have taken the information from there. Basra is not mentioned in Detroit's list of sister cities, nor is there any mention on the web pages of the Free Press or the Detroit News. So is there some hard evidence that I just did not see? --Matt314 (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sister Cities International lists the linkage on their Partnerships in Muslim Majority Countries page. Perhaps they're wrong. I'd have thought that Detroit's website would be the most authoritative source. -- Avenue (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

There has got to be a better image that can be used in the infobox than the ugly, handcrafted montage! —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate is wrong

Somebody changed the climate recently and it's wrong; particularly the "average highs".--IoanC (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal reverted. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 12:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)