Talk:Detroit/Archive 6

Canadian Pronunciation

Given A) the proximity between Detroit and the Canadian border, and B) the wide disparity between American pronunciation and Canadian pronunciation of the word “Detroit” (dih-TROYT vs dee-TROY-it) I have tried to add an IPA notice in the lead to reflect these pronunciations. My edits have been reverted, perhaps because I didn’t provide citation, so I will add them again and include references like the following: here here here Cheers — Muckapedia (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's reasonable precedent for this in (for example) New Orleans, which has wildly varying pronunciations (though one dominates locally) and Missouri, whre the idea of a "correct" pronunciation is complex and controversial. "DEEtroit" should not be characterized as particularly Canadian -- it's heard elsewhere (certainly in the city that was called "Saint Lou-ee" as recently as my grandfather's boyhood...). DavidOaks (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, the source cited, gives /ˈdiːtrɔɪt/ as a local pronunciation. I removed the earlier "Canadian English: [dɛˈtroɪˈjɪt]" as uncited and extremely unlikely, but this may have been an attempt at /ˈdiːtrɔɪt/ by someone unfamiliar with IPA. I will add it shortly. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you did, and that it was reverted -- on what basis, I really don't understand. The footnote is not sufficient, as it does not show the alternate pronunciation. Unless I'm missing something here...Thomas Paine? DavidOaks (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could’ve gotten the IPA wrong, although I looked up and down the IPA_chart_for_English_dialects and thought I was on the money — the uniquely Canadian pronunciation isn’t “DEE-troyt”, it’s “dee-TROY-it” (ie: rhymes with ‘destroy it’) with 1-2-3 syllables. By what standard would this pronunciation be “extremely unlikely”? I added sources above, unfortunately only one published book but I hoped three external references would be enough. If the scepticism is due to my incorrect IPA I apologise, but the pronunciation that should be added is definitely 3 syllables and definitely Canadian.

Right, so the best IPA approximation I can make of the Canadian pronunciation “dee –TROY– it ” is diːtroɪjɪt ... would someone like to confirm with the references I supplied above, before I add the edit to the article? Cheers — Muckapedia (talk) 31^e mars 2010 15h33 (−4h)

The thing that seems unlikely about /diːtrɔɪjɪt/ is the multiple syllable stresses it requires, as well as that [ɔɪjɪ] cluster (/ɔɪ/ is often transcribed /ɔj/, because a nonsyllabic [ɪ] is very, very similar to a [j]. Thus, the two in sequence seems unlikely, especially when followed with yet another [ɪ]. This could, however, be some sort of vowel breaking I'm not familiar with and can't find anything about). I'm guessing the pronunciation we're looking for is either /dɨˈtrɔɪ.ət/ or /dɨˈtrɔɪ.ɨt/. I'm still not confident in the sources we have here, seeing as how they aren't much more than blog posts and forum comments, written by laymen, representing at least 3 distinct accents. I can't figure out where the pronunciation is in that book at all (likely due to my own ignorance). Is there any chance you know of an audio example of this pronunciation? Or better yet, is there a dictionary of Canadian English I'm not aware of? I've searched in vain, stooping so low as watching Red Wings highlights on Youtube, hoping for a Canadianism. Does this pronunciation still rhyme with exploit in the accent(s) in question? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we need WP:RS and good IPA transcription for the standard local pron, the Windsor pron, the out-of-town-but common pron ("DEE-troit") and the original French pron. DavidOaks (talk)

I edited this pronunciation a month or two ago, changing the first syllable from /dɛ/ (which didn't sound right at all to my English ears) to /dɪ/, but it was reverted. I'm glad to see we've at least now got past /dɛ/. The BBC recently showed a one-hour documentary about Detroit, which would be a goldmine for various pronunciations if we could find it online. In particular, I noticed that a lot of older people, including a mayor from the 50s/60s, pronounced it /diːˈtrɔɪt/ ("dee-TROYT") - not "DEE-troyt" with first syllable stress, but not "di-TROYT" either. Lfh (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It’s frustrating looking for a reference to substantiate personal knowledge, instead of vice-versa. The reference in the book can be found on page 17 — search for “de-troy-it” and you’ll find it — but it isn’t a linguistics text and so little help for IPA. It doesn’t rhyme with exploit, it sounds exactly like “destroy it” without the ‘s’. I’m kinda pissed I couldn’t find any references in the usual places, but I’ll keep looking. Try these YouTube moments, you’re all diehard wings fans, right? Don Cherry at 33s; Scotty Bowman at 1m05; Bob Cole at 13s; Cheers — Muckapedia (talk) 1^e avr. 2010 12h01 (−4h)

Yeah, sure, I love LOCAL SPORTS TEAM! I am the absolute #1 LOCAL SPORTS TEAM NICKNAME fan! [Not really]

But seriously, those YouTube pronunciations all sound the same to me, like two-syllable "di-TROYT" rather than three-syllable "di-TROY-it", so maybe my ears aren't attuned enough to Canadian English. I guess I can't help with the Canadian issue. But I did find the BBC clip, which features an old-fashioned US pronunciation "dee-TROYT": 1 (0:13). This is distinct from the "di-TROYT" version that we currently give. Lfh (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Lfh, they all sound like /dɨˈtrɔɪt/ to me. Maybe my Canadian-dar is failing me... Now that I think of it, upon relistening, Cherry's sounds like the /diˈtrɔɪt/ you're talking about, Lfh. It wouldn't surprise me that Canadians retained the slightly older pronunciation, with unreduced [i(ː)]. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hear the difference but I admit it’s subtle in those examples, rushed speech and all. But check out this one: Jim Devellano at 1m05 speaking slowly, clearly more than diphthong ɔɪ with hiatus, it’s consonantal j starting third syllable. — Muckapedia (talk) 1^er avr. 2010 17h12 (−4h)

Wow, you're right. That is pretty clear. So how many variants do we have now, four? 1 - /dɨˈtrɔɪt/ (local and contemporary); 2 - /diːˈtrɔɪt/ (old local, and possibly still Canadian); 3 - /dɨˈtrɔɪjɨt/ (Canadian); and 4 - /ˈdiːtrɔɪt/ (local according to MW). This may be a candidate for a dedicated section, like at Zurich#Etymology. Lfh (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Godd idea -- Missour too has a separate, brief section on etymolody and pronunciation. DavidOaks (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So, refs: Merriam-Webster-Online for 1 and 4; the GoogleBooks ref for 3; and the BBC clip for 2 (though it's anyone's guess how long that clip will stay online). Any other sources? Lfh (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Don’t forget the original French pronunciation “day-TWAH”; the aforementioned google books source claims that not only was it the original pronunciation — and so the default among Detroit francophones before they were anglicised — but apparently “stuck-up types from Grosse Pointe” preferred this pronunciation for its pretensions. Also, I’m don’t think the attribution of 2 - /diːˈtrɔɪt/ pronunciation as “possibly Canadian” is correct. Cheers — Muckapedia (talk) 6^e avr. 2010 16h39 (−4h)

Urban farming?

Any Wikipedian want to step up and add a section about the controversial plan to convert unused urban land to rural farmland? There's a few articles of Major Bing saying it's part of a plan to relocate some of the city's population into concentrated areas. Considering how notable this is given that it's the first attempt of its kind, it might even deserve its own article (forgive me if it already exists, but it's not linked here!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.228.221 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD.--Louiedog (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

RoboCop?

It's really strange that there's no mention of RoboCop, the hit movie series which both reflected and cemented Americans' impression of Detroit as the kind of city that is so dangerous that only RoboCop could clean it up! --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hamtramck

There's no mention Hamtramck, which is part of Detroit, but also the name of the American who took Detroit from the British. This was clearly a pivotal event, and it didn't happen at the time of the revolution. Hamtramk was French Canadian, which also means that the info on the last French Canadian leader is wrong. Many of them stayed under the British and were happy to help the Americans take the state away from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.210.139 (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hamtramck is not part of Detroit; it's a seperate city. As such, it has its own article: Hamtramck, Michigan Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone, accuracy

Can't agree that this diff[1] represents "restoring encyclopedic tone and information" -- in fact, it deletes information (though in rv'ing, I accidentally del'd some, which I have tried to restore with a more careful edit). It is entirely accurate to say the city "suffers from" rather than "has" vacancy issues or "experiences" urban decay. And it's hard to see how saying the city was "affected" by the recession is an improvement, or that a drop in population should be called "resizing." DavidOaks (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I took issue with the WP:SYNTH-y way that the vacancy was implied to be due to recession or foreclosures. What's accurate is that both of these things make the problem worse.

Resizing is an interesting issue. Apparently the city is shrinking in population and in neighborhoods that have viable density, stretching infrastructure and services. "Resizing" basically describes the solution: that the unoccupied space be cleaned up, turned into farmland, while relocating the few people there to higher density areas. Thus, the city operates on a smaller footprint and is resized down to what works.--Louiedog (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Eclectic mix" is unsupported opinion, not really encyclopedic in tone. "Has" and "experiences" are certainly more neutral terms, and factural, while "suffers" is a value judgment that isn't necessarily facturally accurate besides that its somewhat anthropomorphic in tone. Most of the so called urban decay will soon be demolished if the city stays on its demolition plan, so the point may become moot. There is certainly a correlation between the rise in vacancy rates with recession and foreclosure. The statement didn't claim affected by recession was an improvement. Not sure what the object is there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Eclectic mix is pretty much accurate by definition. It was a more interesting way of saying that there is a huge gap in what you see from one place to the next. I'm not particularly attached to the wording, though it makes the prose a little more engaging.

"Most of the so called urban decay will soon be demolished if the city stays on its demolition plan, so the point may become moot."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the present, not what may soon be. The possible future shouldn't be written as the guaranteed present. Should the day come when vacancy rates themselves become nonnotable, then the fact that there were once high vacancy rates remains as a notable piece of context explaining why so much of the city has been knocked down, why large empty spaces abound, and why the city is proposing over the next several years this whole unprecedented "resizing" idea with agriculture.

Also, [2] is a down link. I get a 404. The resource cannot be found. The down link template should be reinstated.--Louiedog (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The bot archived the link, that seems to be the new procedure.

Most of the so called urban decay has been scheduled for demolition in 2010. So for the present tense, the city is in the process of substantially eliminating its urban decay. Thus, the so called urban decay will soon be demolished if the city stays on its demolition plan, so the point may become moot as noted. As to available parcels, the city of Detroit still has a much higher population density than many other major cities. Available parcels in other cities are not described as 'severe vacancy'. This seems to be a trumped up media issue. The vacancy issue seems to be overdwelling. The city of Detroit's population density is much higher than Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc., and isn't far behind Los Angeles in density, and those cities have a large supply of 'vacancy' or available parcels. The city of Detroit is simply clearing away older properties. Developers are actually building new neighborhoods in the city, though delayed by the recession, an issue overlooked by the some media sources. The city's progress and plans can be updated as more information becomes available. It will be interesting to see what plans they develop.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Denying urban decay in Detroit is WP:POV, it's whitewash, it's silly. All of the things you're saying belong, if they can be sourced to WP:RS, and accompanied by the overwhelming number of sources that document a city with real problems. Boosterism is the legit work of the tourism board and the chamber of commerce. We're here to represent all relevant sides of a subject, not to "correct" the "media" or to analyze and make comparisons to other cities (that's WP:OR). DavidOaks (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"so the point may become moot as noted." Notice the tense you use. That is all.

Population density is a completely inappropriate statistic to be comparing. Detroit, as an older city, started with a higher density than all these modern car cities (e.g. Houston, LA, El Paso). The issue is quantity of unused buildings and lots and swaths of unoccupied land, the dramatic solutions to which received repeated coverage in the media, including very recently the New York Times. This has received far more national coverage than e.g. live music, movie studios, tourism, Greektown, the Spirit of Detroit, Quicken Loans moving, casinos.--Louiedog (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, for a comparison on neutrality, this is the first encylopedia article about Detroit I found on google. It closes by mentioning both the revitalization projects and the struggles: "Coleman Young, the city's first (1974-93) black mayor, presided during difficult years of decline, and the years since have been marked by population losses and city financial difficulties."--Louiedog (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Article appearance

I am not a big fan of the huge skyline picture in the middle of the article. I also don't like the largest businesses section - which has no text in it. Rmhermen (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Remedied appearance with new enhancements. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

The dead external links need fixing or the article is at risk of being demoted from its FA status. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned-up dead links. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Can we keep the population infobox in the demographics section consistent with the standards on other city pages, and just show the city population? Perhaps, the entire thing can be moved to Detroit's specific demographic history page, and we can put back in the standard population infobox, which would show the percentage growth or decline. Right now, it doesn't show the percent gain or decline. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The box has been enhanced to illustrate the topic at hand. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not consistent with how population boxes are done for most other cities. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 census data

Why are there no data from 2010 Census in the section Demographics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lootsucker (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Detroit downsizing

According to yon New York Times article [3], the city planners are seeking to downsize the city. Any way some of the info in it can be put into the article about this unfortunate city? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Its already mentioned. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Surrounding" municipalities graphic

Some of the so-called surrounding municipalities are located several miles beyond Detroit's city limits. Ann Arbor residents, for instance, would be surprised to learn that their city "surrounds" Detroit. Isn't this graphic supposed to show the cities that immediately border Detroit, not just any community of note nearby? Funnyhat (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you prefer if it was titled "Nearby municipalities"? --Avenue (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Surrounding is generally an accurate description, but there are too many to cover and its not really needed since its already in a sub article.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Montage

I have to say, I'm really not a fan of this new montage. The picture of Woodward Avenue seems fairly random. Why do we need two shots of the Ren Cen? The DIY picture seems particularly drab. I'd like to see a montage featuring the Fox Theatre, a nicer DIY pic, Campus Martius, Greektown and a more imposing skyline shot if anyone knows how to make one. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree generally, but we can live with it for a while. Montages are difficult to get the right photos and sizes. We can work on it.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unemployment rate

Obviously, a couple more reverts won't give a consensus so here's the discussion.

1. This website does not give Detroit city proper's unemployment rate and it therefore certainly doesn't give it as 19.1%.
2. This website gives unemployment as of April 2010 at 22.7%. Which you keep removing. It being federal data, rather than state, it's in a better place to give objective and standardized data that's more appropriate to compare locally between cities in different states.
3. The placement of the unemployment. If the lede of the economy section is discussing the city proper's employment base, it would be misleading not to also include the city proper unemployment, instead of burying it 2/3 of the way into the section, after mentioning Compuware World, OnStar, regional, HP Enterprise Services, the Renaissance Center, Pricewaterhouse, Coopers Plaza, Ernst & Young's offices at One Kennedy Square, Quicken Loans, American Axle & Manufacturing, DTE Energy, and casino gaming.

--Louiedog (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The city's unemployment rate for April 2011 was 19.1%, and the cite does show that. Its the same federal and state data. May 2011 data has been released and is in the article. Adjusted placement. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? All I see are state and national figures. Also, the BLS gives the rate as 22.7. I suggest we include both in the interests of completeness.--Louiedog (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Figures are accessed within the link 'historical unemployment rates' for the category selected as city. Its the same federal and state data. The BLS link you're looking at lists outdated figures from last year, 2010.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I went back and it seems you're right. The MILMI numbers for April 2010 (23.2) are even less generous than those of BLS (22.7). Were BLS to list a figure today, it would probably be closer to the 20% you have listed now with MILMI. I've put a more direct link in the ref in hopes that this clarifies how to access the data. My concerns have been addressed. Cheers.--Louiedog (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

seals

A description of the seals can be found at p138 and p755 of The history of Detroit and Michigan, or, The metropolis illustrated (1884) [4]. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Detroit Master Plan Neighborhoods

I am very interested in starting a page on Detroit's formal and official statistical divisions called "Master Plan Neighborhoods." Master Plan Neighborhoods are very much the same in spirit as the Community areas in Chicago or the Community Boards in New York City, but more like the former since they serve no administrative purpose, only a statistical purpose. Master Plan Neighborhoods are actually groups of both formal and informal neighborhoods used for statistical purposes, and are more comparable to regions than individuals neighborhoods. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that they are groupings based on Census Tract or Block Groups. Specifically, they are used by the city's planning department and the many private and non-profit statistical agencies of the city to keep track of demographics. I'd really like to start a page so that we can have some kind of reference and comparison of populations and other demographics since 2000 (data for these official divisions go back the 1990 census, I think). I like the idea of adding this because as a supplemental to the less formal neighborhood page and pages for the city. The informal neighborhoods somtimes don't have official boundaries or changing boundaries, but the Master Plan Neighborhoods are constant and can be compared from one Census to the next. What I'm interested in is if there are multiple people that could do things like outline these neighborhoods on maps and do graphics? I'd be willing to take care of writing intitial drafts for each of these and putting in the basic information and updating it as I have the time, but I'm not good with graphics and uploading stuff to the commons and such. BTW here is a map of the neighborhoods, here is another map, one more map, and here is a detailed page from the city's website with maps, tables, graphs, and etc. You can also find information for them at Data Driven Detroit. If anyone is interested in even just starting the page, I say we title it "Master Plan Neighborhoods of Detroit" so as not to conflict with the existing page for the informal neighborhoods. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Would suggest calling it "Community areas in Detroit" like the article Community areas in Chicago since that would distinguish it and have the same consistency. These 'areas' contain more than one neighborhood. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree simply because "community areas" is a formal name already taken by Chicago, just as I wouldn't call them "community boards" because they aren't. Detroit has a formal name for them; I happen to think it's kind of ridiculous, but that's their official and formal name. I'd stick with Master Plan Neighborhoods, to be honest. It's a different enough name from the article on the informal neighborhoods of Detroit (Neighborhoods in Detroit), that it won't be too badly confused. Still haven't had time to look through Detroit's master plan, but I'll try to look at it over the week. However, I would like the page set up similar to the community areas of Chicago. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fine if you'd like to call it the Master Plan name. Just wanted to make some suggestions to distinguish it. Perhaps "Master Plan Neighborhood areas in Detroit" would distinguish it. Go ahead and set it up with the name. Also, wanted to point out that areas in the Master Plan neighborhood areas include more than one neighborhood.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You could set it up, and I wouldn't mind the name "Master Plan Neighborhood areas in Detroit". BTW, I'd made the point in my original post above that the Master Plan Neighborhoods actually include multiple neighborhoods and are more like city regions than what one would traditionally call a neighborhood. This would be made a point of in the article. If you'd like to draft a page, that'd be great. I'll be happy when the city updates the demographics for these neighborhoods in the coming years. Right now, I'll be able to add population, racial make-up, etc...for the year 2000, and the pop. for 1990. Given that these neighborhoods consists of Census tracts, I guess I could also at least add the total population for 2010, but to get demographics any further than that to compare with 2000 would be very complicated. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, finally got around to starting the page and named in Master Plan Neighborhoods of Detroit. If the name is intolerable, I'd not be against changing it later. So far, I just wrote and opening, put in a ref list, categories and such. I'll be adding building the "neighborhoods" section very soon. I'm going to group them by the formal neighborhood clusters of which there are 10 since the neighborhoods themselves aren't numbered like the Chicago community areas. It is my hope that like the Chicago areas, each of the neighborhoods will get its own page/subpage for which I'll add all of the demographic information (found here). Later, someone can make the maps for each. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Historic Annexations

Can someone please add info regarding towns detroit has annexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.237.195 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly would this be added? Perhaps the History of Detroit subpage? Just off the top of my head, I know for sure that Detroit consists of areas annexed from Greenfield, Hamtramck, Redford, Grosse Pointes and Springwells townships. Of incorporated villages and cities that Detroit annexed, the only one that I know of is the city Delray. There were small settlements that eventually were ate up, but I don't believe any others but Delray ever incorporated as cities. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate

Why are the temperatures much higher than they had been? They don't agree with the stated source either. I wanted to ensure that I wasn't misreading the source before changing anything, but I think those temperatures are for Kentucky or somewhere else. mp2dtw (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You sure you're simply not mistaking the record highs with the average highs? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Economist resource

The parable of Detroit; So cheap, there’s hope. Having lost a quarter of its population in a decade, America’s most blighted big city could be turning the corner Oct 22nd 2011 from the print edition, page 31. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled section

So apparently these Dtown lovers don't want to publish the facts from the census and NYTimes that Detroit is a ghost town, with no population in many parts, and it has NOT moved to the suburbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCJohnson77 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the phrase "you draw more flies with honey than vinegar"? Anyway, indeed, the text in question does not appear to be supported by the sources in that section (though it's probably accurate). DP76764 (Talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the lead so short?

As per WP:USCITY guidelines, the lead should contain a bit more about the city, generally:

• Population
• Historical roots and founding
• Basis of economy
• Nickname, if notable
• What the city's known for

None of that is here anymore. Why?--Louiedog (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has a decidely biased slant

Detroit has had many political struggles over the past decades that center around racial divides. This strife is an integral part of the city's history and should not be slighted. Rosa Parks lived and fought political battles in Detroit. The Riots of 1943 and 1967 are not even mentioned-again, this major omission drains the life blood off the page. Oh, I guess that nasty bit is safely tucked off in the separate pages on those topics. ? ! This article fails to mention the huge collection of blighted areas that meander in and around the whole area but are concentrated heavily inside the city boundary.More blood is safely drained away. In sum, a lifeless, nicey nice account that serves no real purpose except to pretty up the Wikipedia Machine. Thaddeus0720 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So why not quit whining and fix it?--Asher196 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Poverty remains an entrenched problem

Thomas Paine1776, you have now reverted edits which are contested. The explanation that it is "repetition" is inaccurate. It's a very different thing to cite percentages and statistics than to outright state in prose what the Time article has stated explicitly: that poverty in the inner-city remains an entrenched problem.

Also, you ended up removing that source in the course of your edit, but this source is later cited as "time" so regardless of what we put here, the source needs to stay so it can be cited elsewhere.

--Louiedog (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Source doesn't say 'entrenched', and that's not really an encyclopedic description. Source says 'estimated' for those who have difficulty filling out forms.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to part with exact wording but I think "entrenched" is faithful representation of Time's article, "Today it struggles for its life: not one national chain operates a grocery store in the entire 138-sq.-mi. city limits of Detroit. The estimated functional illiteracy rate in the city limits hovers near 50%. The unsolved-murder rate is about 70%, and unemployment is around an astonishing 29%."

Alternatively, we could change "entrenched" to "struggling for life" (or simply "struggling"), as something more direct from the source.--Louiedog (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I take issue with this edit concerning the functional illiteracy. Difficulty understanding labels or filling out forms is not functional illiteracy; it is two (of many) characteristics of functional illiteracy. Current wording makes it sound like "functional illiteracy" is a term invented solely to describe people who fail at those two tasks.--Louiedog (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Entrenched implies something else. A problem or a serious problem is more encyclopedic. The description of filling out forms came from the original source for the study and it says certain tasks 'such as' which doesn't sound like its solely two tasks and it was written by someone who originally inserted the sentence.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

You're right about entrenched. We could go with maybe a "continued problem" or mention that it "struggles" with it. As for functional illiteracy, wikipedia's article functional illiteracy cites a source that says this:

"In the not-too-distant past a significant number of Americans were literally illiterate in that they could not decode words on the written page. Today, 99 percent of all adult Americans can read in the sense that they can decode words.9 The illiteracy rate that concerns us today is the functional illiteracy rate. Nearly half of adult Americans are functionally illiterate; they cannot read well enough to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level. Literal illiteracy has been eradicated. What remains to be eradicated is functional illiteracy, which represents a newer, higher standard."--Louiedog (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued problem is fine. The term functional illiteracy is misleading by itself, its needs to be qualified.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How about, "About 50 percent of city residents are estimated to be functionally illiterate, meaning they cannot read well enough to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level."?--Louiedog (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is better, except 'cannot' is overboard. Forbes has recently questioned the validity of the functional illiteracy claim for Detroit residents and revealed that the study has been miscited and it is actually from 1993 data called Level 1 Literacy.[5]. The functional illiteracy claim appears not to meet wikipedia standards for research in light of Forbes. The 'functional illiteracy' claim does seem to be an elitist attempt/form of labeling and simply recycled media sensationalism. Perhaps we should not include the 'functional illiteracy' term or claim.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Overboard or not, it is directly what the cited source says. When in doubt, cite all the things, and include all the content.

First, the Forbes source you cite does not contradict anything, saying both: (1) Level 1 Literacy is not quite the same as functional illiteracy, by the way, but it’s close enough that we’ll let the distinction slide" and (2) still maintains that it's a notable fact, "To be sure, the statistic is not exactly encouraging, but it’s far from an urgent mandate for doubling down on testing and other corporate reforms."

Second, the 47% figure, accurate or not, is widely circulated, which means rather than utilizing our discretion as editors to effectively censor such a fact from view, it becomes out responsibility to report the whole story, letting readers decide for themselves.

Rather than make the case that it should not be cited, I believe you've strengthened the cause for its inclusion more than before, with an extra note qualifying the 47% functional illiteracy claim.--Louiedog (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: it seems you've done this already. I think your edit works well.--Louiedog (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it a little bit, but the more I read about this, the more stupid it seems to be reported: every news organization is reporting this as if the NIL came out with a new report in 2011 that made this claim, as opposed to Detroit Regional Workforce Fund just stating it anew. This was a good catch by E.D. Kain, which was in turn, an even better catch by some obscure blogger.--Louiedog (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Colemanyoungbldgdetroit.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Colemanyoungbldgdetroit.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Neighborhoods and demographics Regarding this, I have given reasons for the changes ThomasPaine1776 has reverted now twice. Edit summaries with this reversion are sparse. Also, let me clarify, I readded the piece about the affluent suburb counties once I was able to decipher what changes you had made and realized that you had added sources. Regarding the neighborhoods change, "A 2009 parcel survey found 86% of the city's occupied housing to be in good condition", is not notable. It's not surprising and, in any other city article, would seem bizarrely out of place. This piece: the 2009 residential lot vacancy in Detroit was 27.8%, up from 10.3% in 2000, with the population continuing to shrink and foreclosures that exacerbate the problem. An estimated 20 to 30 percent of lots are vacant. however, IS notable, and therefore is far more worthy of inclusion. Additionally, "Suburban Oakland County in Metro Detroit contains among the more affluent in the U.S." belongs in the first paragraph of the demographics section, as it is the only other paragraph in that section that discusses metropolitan area issues and not city proper. Also, that statement does not accurately represent what the sources state and it's also imprecise with current wording among the "more affluent" what? The sources state that this country is among the most affluent 'counties in the country. The wording should be changed to accurately reflect this. Thanks.--Louiedog (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Housing condition is notable and cited along with the one-third vacancy by the AP. It was already in the section and you may not have noticed.(Fixed affluent sentence).Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC) An 86% of occupied housing being in good condition is not distinctive and nothing surprising to find in a city. The occupied housing stock of Detroit is not what's notable about the city. The fact that the occupancy rate is so low, at 2/3, down from 9/10 in 2000, to the point of urban prairie, is. This is what gets Time Magazine writing articles. It's also incongruous. Why is a sentence about the quality of the city's occupied housing immediately following a sentence about the city's low inhabited density? It doesn't make any sense.--Louiedog (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC) The cited figures for housing conditions are actually for all homes in the city. The Detroit Free Press also found the housing conditions along with the vacancy rates notable. (fixed sentence).Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC) But again that's misleading because vacant lots and abandoned buildings I'm sure aren't counted as homes. I don't see how it's of any note. No other city articles have an obscure piece of information along the lines of "most housing is in good condition". As for notability, looking at the sources that are in the article after that stated fact ([41][47][48][49), we have {41} a parcel survey, which is generally advised against because it's primary data and not a secondary news article, (47) the results of a parcel survey, reported in an obscure "online magazine" that would likely not pass WP:RS, (49) a link actually NOT from the DFP (though purporting to be) that's actually from a nonprofit Detroit survey organization. And then there's (48) the only article that actually appears in a notable secondary reliable source, coming from AP stating: "Survey: A third of all Detroit lots are vacant or abandoned". All this shows that the main point of what's been covered is the one third vacancy rate. Smaller points within the AP article we may wish to also consider adding as addendum include things like "64 percent contained occupied housing, nearly 10 percent had vacant homes and more than 26 percent were empty lots", maybe even that the survey "busts the national media myth" that Detroit has fallen into complete disarray. All we've got right now is a very incomplete and partial sampling of the article, sprinkled into the paragraph in random order with no hierarchy.--Louiedog (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Also, there's this source found later in the same paragraph, also from AP. I can't for the life of me figure what's being cited from it. The headline is "Motor City's woes extend beyond auto industry" and it's about the city's general troubles even as the city rests its hopes on downtown areas being reborn with new purpose.--Louiedog (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC) The Detroit Free Press considers the housing conditions notable along with the vacancy rates. (corrected sentence). Thanks. Will see about adjusting some of the citations. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC) potential WSJ resource No Train for the Motor City by Matthew Dolan 16.December.2011 99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC) An interesting source. What would you like to add to the article from it?--Louiedog (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) current populationof detroit? I see that someone reverted an update of the population of Detroit. The article currently contains old 2010 statistics. Is there no source for more up to date info? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC) The U.S. census is only done oncec ever ten years - and its estimates in other years have proved to be a bit off-base in the case of Detroit.[6] Rmhermen (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Accuracy of article Almost every time I read anything about Detroit, the topic is the terrible, sad decline of the city. Basically many people seem to be saying that the city is dying, and the pictures of the decay and devastation are truly shocking. This Wikipedia article, on the other hand, seems to paint a fairly upbeat picture of city that is functioning normally. I don't see how both pictures can be correct. I do not mean any disrespect to citizens of the city, and I do not wish to denigrate it, but I am just having difficulties reconciling this article with what I read in places like [7], [8], [9], etc., with quotes like, e.g. "In ruins: A third of the city's 140 square miles [...] lies abandoned and derelict." 86.179.0.156 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Balance Hello, I am since many years an almost unconditional admirer of Wikipedia. I've been promoting this (these) extraordinary website(s) when it was not yet well known. Sometimes, I was a little bit surprised for some articles by the fact that the description was too positive, but I was thinking that it is not so important because it is compensated in other articles directly linked. But concerning the city of Detroit, I was looking for information about the reasons of the decline of the city and I couldn't find anything. And I couldn't find any link to an article about this decline. After reading the whole article, I could find some information, but far too discrete, not something that somebody wanting to have a general idea about this city will notice. I was really very disappointed. As a Belgian citizen, I do not know much about this city, but I know that this city already lost more than 50 % of its inhabitants since 60 years, that you can buy a house in some parts of the city for less than the price of a car, that some parts of the cities are literally empty and that it is necessary to destroy parts of the city to keep it viable. Sorry to say that, but when seeing the image of Detroit coming from Wikipedia, I have the impression of a description made by some promotion agency. Actually, when you take a look on the website of the administration (http://www.detroitmi.gov), you find easily information for example about the residential demolition program. You find more "objective" information on an official website than on the wikipedia website. Can you explain why there is no specific part about the decline of the city? Thank you in advance for you reaction. Didier Coeurnelle PS: I see that there was a similar reaction about one month ago but I see no answer. Editor, an article winds up taking the tone that best reflects the people who have put the most work into it. Periodically, people do raise the same concern you do, but keep in mind that "this article is too positive" is too vague an indictment to give a useful avenue toward improvement. You are always free to Be Bold and change anything you think is nonneutral. Editors here will assume good faith about you edits and will let you know if they have any concerns.--Louiedog (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (side note to OP): also, please try to provide a reliable source for any information you may change; good sourcing will increase the chances of new edits being retained. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC) What would be a good source for up-to-date crime statistics? AlexiusHoratius 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC) "White racists" One sentence in the section on residential segregation has been repeatedly removed: White racists attacked black homes: breaking windows, starting fires, and exploding bombs. This pattern was later magnified by white migration to the suburbs. The logic for the removal is that the term 'racist' is subjective. I don't agree personally, but I think that talking about it on the talk page is better than edit warring. For now, I've restored the sentence using the phrase "white residents" instead. love, groupuscule (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. I tried to start a discussion with 216.255.250.88 about related issues, and was dismayed to see it blanked. I have similar concerns with User:Thomas Paine1776 (contribs), who operates on similar pages, and has made the same changes on the Detroit page. All advice & comments are appreciated. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC) "Racist" speaks to motive and general mindset rather than physical description or activity. If "whites attacked blacks" is verifiably relevant to demographic or economic changes in the area, that makes at least a neutral description of the actions viable content. The given refs do support some racist undertones though, since the actions included cross-burning and multiple descriptions of them being attacked because they were black (rather than simply being in an area of general rioting, for example). NPOV allows us to use what the sources say, even if they espouse an opinion (and it even requires that we do not give even-handed treatment if the sources are not that way). That is separate from the edit-war (involving editors who have been here long enough to know better!) over the use of a (sub)header for that section. The subheader helps highlight this section as being an important subtopic, either in the context of the article itself or in the wider encyclopedia. So again, do the sources support that? DMacks (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC) We don't needs an explicit source to add a logical subdivision to a long section. The "Demographics" section is 13 paragraphs, and even if some of the one-sentence paragraphs were combined together, there are still plenty of paragraphs. If you want an explicit source, I have at least three that deal with 8 Mile Road as a dividing line in the nation's most segregated metropolitan area. (They're sources I have yet to add to the M-102 (8 Mile Road) article only because I have had other articles ahead of it in my highway priorities. Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Rayner, Ben (November 23, 2002). "Detroit Rap City: The Infamous 8 Mile Strip in Eminem's Hometown Has Become the Symbolic Locus of Racial Divide, But if Anything Can Help Redeem Detroit from its Own Image, It's the Music". The Toronto Star. p. J1. Brooks, Jennifer (October 22, 2002). "Symbolic Street Remains Racial, Economic Barrier: Eight Mile Divide Still Runs Deep". The Detroit News. p. A1. Chinni, Dante (November 15, 2002). "Along Detroit's Eight Mile Road , A Stark Racial Split". Christian Science Monitor. p. 1. Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Having sources that support notability helps support a position as more than just editorial preference (and contradict a claim of WP:UNDUE--it is appropriate to highlight notable aspects). Segregation is apparently an important aspect (per cited superlative and long-term historical patterns and/or events), so it makes sense to highlight it with its own section. Similarly, it is reasonable to have additional content beyond the normal mind-numbing demographic info of cities (DUE weight on this aspect). Because there is a large chunk on a single aspect of demographics, it makes editorial sense to subsection it. DMacks (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC) The section appears to be WP:Soapbox and not really a neutral point of view and not very well written. Heading would give undue WP:Undue weight to selective interpretations and use of terms. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Thomas Paine1776, I see that you've deleted [the header] again. This seems like an unwarranted unilateral decision, particularly given well-reasoned agreement by other editors that it does not give the topic undue weight. I restored the header today, but I would ask other editors who are in agreement to please help out in this matter. And let me know if I'm somehow out of line. groupuscule (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) The 'demographics' is otherwise a jumble of facts that do not go together. The section on segregation is different--all of the content is related. In addition to the fact that this is documented as a crucial aspect of Detroit, the header also makes the facts readable in a section that otherwise is very difficult even for someone patient to look at. groupuscule (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC) There is no warrant to add the the heading. The heading was similarly not agreed to by editors in the Pittsburgh article where you added it there and it now has no heading. At Project cities guideline editors also did not agree with using your heading. The section appears to be WP:Soapbox and not really a neutral point of view and not very well written. Heading would give undue WP:Undue weight to selective interpretations and use of terms. The content should be more concise and neutral. The 'class' and 'health' comments are approaching WP:Fringe.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC) You've deleted the header again despite the apparent fact that you are the only user on this talk page who agrees with that decision! The decision we reached (amicably) in Pittsburgh is that we didn't have enough data to do the section correctly and so more research would be necessary. Detroit has a history of more obvious and violent segregation than Pittsburgh. For a long time it was the most segregated city in the US. There are multiple books written about this fact. I am sad that you think the correlation between race, class, and health is a 'fringe' belief. Perhaps you would find the medical literature base persuasive? Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) The appropriate terminology would be majority minority communities. The comments ignore the growing hispanic population. A neutral heading might be 'residential patterns', though it doesn't need a heading. It appears condescending/elitist to assume whether a residential pattern of a majority minority community is unhealthy. 'Class' and 'health' comments approach WP:Fringe, it appears as Marxist spin, which could be the bias of the source. Drawing causations from mere correlations is not research per se, its more speculation and spin. The source does have a bias. The source speculates and assumes in the opinion piece. The source ignores high value resources in cities. The source attempts to editorialize around market driven aspects. The comments place undue weight on selected aspects. The court case cited is random and really doesn't need to be included. The comments as is amount to WP:Soapbox and giving it the heading you suggest is giving it WP:Undue weight. Citing isolated cases or rare occurances of aberrant behavior in emphasis is placing WP:Undue weight and attempts at WP:Soapbox, especially with the heading you suggest. The comments could be more concise and neutral and that can be accomplished.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Climate Should the page show the City Airport climate records or the Detroit Metro ones? Since the NWS records go back to 1874 they predate both airports and even the invention of airplanes. Which location is "official"? Rmhermen (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Metro airport is more common for area, and used by travelers.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Systematic bias in the page Without dredging up more of the recently archived discussions, I just want to us to keep in mind that several of them expressed astonished disappointment with the whitewashing contained in this article. Detroit's economy has not been doing well lately. Many of the city's employees must also resort to federal food stamps. Yet the article's "Economy" section contains no traces at all of the many real problems faced by the city. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I assume you can provide some sources for those claims? If so, some inclusion may be warranted, if it's significant enough. DP76764 (Talk) 19:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Increased use of social programs is a national phenomenon for obvious reasons. Its not necessarily notable.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC) An one-sided view of Detroit? There is too little on the massive decay of Detroit after 1960 in the article and the reasons for it. The riots of 1967 are mentioned but the reader is left in the dark about the social conditions which triggered them. I found the idea intriguing that the economic malaise of Detroit culminated in the Republican Convention. Gr5959 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Midtown, but no Cass Corridor? Hi there, I'm not a regular editor or anything so I don't know how to change much, but I noticed that the area South of Wayne State between the Lodge Freeway to the West, MLK to the South, and Woodward to the East is constantly referred to as Midtown and there is not one single mention of Cass Corridor. The term "Cass Corridor" is not even present in this entire article. There's surely a debate to be had about whether or not this area is Midtown or Cass Corridor now, but to ignore the cultural contributions that the Cass Corridor has made to the city itself seems to be a very weird yuppifying way of white-washing history. As a Detroiter, I was extremely disappointed to see that such a historically and culturally relevant neighborhood has been put under erasure in favor of the new hip narrative about young people saving the city. Anyway, I'd like to change the uses of "Midtown" to "Cass Corridor" unless the section is specifically about Midtown, Inc. (which is not a neighborhood). 76.112.150.38 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)m Cass Corridor is within Midtown and it has its own article. Help improve subarticles. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Detroit: biased article Like many othe people before me (see 2 examples below), I am disappointed not to see anything about the decline of Detroit. Assuming good faith, I tried to add something with the comment It seems to me (Belgian citizen) necessary to mention this important aspect even if it is unpleasant. I used the French wikipedia as inspiration. The addition was deleted without any argumentation.Somebody (Logical Cowboy) reverted with the comment: Reverted good faith edits by Thomas Paine1776: Could you please provide an edit summary when deleting sourced material? Thanks! 5 minutes later, it was destroyed again with the comment: already in demographics. And somebody (the same person?) deleted also one sentence of the French Wikipedia without any explanation. I am sorry to say that this is not true. The added sentences are not in the part "Demographics". So assuming the deleting was done by mistake, I insert again the modification. If somebody does not agree with the modification, please let me know why. And let me know also why Wikipedia in all other languages write about the positive asepects AND the big difficulties of the city and Wikipedia in English only the positive aspects. DidierC (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC) ''Accuracy of article (12 May 2012) Almost every time I read anything about Detroit, the topic is the terrible, sad decline of the city. Basically many people seem to be saying that the city is dying, and the pictures of the decay and devastation are truly shocking. This Wikipedia article, on the other hand, seems to paint a fairly upbeat picture of city that is functioning normally. I don't see how both pictures can be correct.'' This article has a decidely biased slant Detroit has had many political struggles over the past decades that center around racial divides. This strife is an integral part of the city's history and should not be slighted. Rosa Parks lived and fought political battles in Detroit. The Riots of 1943 and 1967 are not even mentioned-again, this major omission drains the life blood off the page. Oh, I guess that nasty bit is safely tucked off in the separate pages on those topics. ? ! This article fails to mention the huge collection of blighted areas that meander in and around the whole area but are concentrated heavily inside the city boundary.More blood is safely drained away. In sum, a lifeless, nicey nice account that serves no real purpose except to pretty up the Wikipedia Machine. Thaddeus0720 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)'' Wikipedia is not a newpaper or a soapbox for propaganda or opinion. Every city has unused buildings, not notable, and there is already a sub article which covers planning and development with details of unused buildings and redeveloped buildings. Articles in other languages probably are long outdated and haven't kept pace with developments and changes in the city. The population topic is already covered in the article. Also, there are several sub articles to cover details. ThanksThomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Detroit is a special case, with widespread media, scholarly, and popular attention to its shrinking population, industrial and tax base. Indeed this is a major issue for the history of Detroit, and deserves full attention this article. It is not true that the decline is similar in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Philadelphia – those with the cities once considered comparable to Detroit. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC) This article is currently under a Featured article review for this reason. It may lose featured status because of its unbalanced treatment. Rmhermen (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I first read about this in the FAR, and if reliable sourced content regarding the decline of the subject are being removed, it does not (IMHO) bode well for the continued FA status of this article. Balanced weight should be included regarding this highly notable sub-subject within this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I for one was completely astounded at the level of bias present in this article. This article manages to take the small and scattered bits of semi-good news about Detroit and combine them to make it sound like Detroit is doing better than ever. The decline of Detroit's economy, population, and overall well-being has been by far the most important theme of Detroit's history in the past several decades, and this article needs to speak of it. Until that happens, this article's FA status needs to be removed. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Article Appears to Be Under Protection This is addressed to the editors who have made the Detroit article one of the biggest whitewash jobs I have seen in Wikipedia. I am referring particularly to (user name redacted). Your tireless devotion to sanitizing this article is readily apparent. I noted the way you delete criticism from your talk page, sometimes just minutes after it is posted, but the good stuff stays. Your aversion to the use of comments is remarkable. You conceal your agenda behind a cloud of assertions about sources or NPOV, which is all quite admirable, except when used to legitimize bias. I came to the Detroit article intending to educate my 10 year-old son about this remarkable urban disaster. I had just finished describing to him that watching Detroit in the news for the past decade has been like watching a slow motion train wreck. And what do I find? A glowing article about a beautiful city--a place people must by just dying to move to--and a perfect illustration of the fact that you can't always trust Wikipedia. Instead of learning about Detroit, I had to explain to him that there are people who are so determined to get their POV across that they will edit an article tirelessly, day after day after day. Like (user name redacted). This article undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. The responsible editors have seen plenty of consistent criticism of this article right here on the talk page, but it is mostly safely tucked away in the archives where few readers will notice it. Don't waste time telling me to edit the article. I won't waste my time trying as long as certain editors are circling like guard dogs. I am passing through, and this is your home turf. Go ahead and paper over its crumbling walls. Featured Article...that's almost laughable! --Taquito1 (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks Rmhermen for retrieving this talk page from yet another premature and predictable archive. This kind of behaviour--editors hiding views they may not like by archiving--discourages people from joining the efforts to improve a "protected" article. I have been editing Wikipedia long enough to recognize the whitewash that results from zealous editors who don't go away, and I know the futility of going head to head with them. They will be back tomorrow, and the next day, and next month, continually undoing a myriad of little things counter to their POV. I am no expert on Detroit, but I have been there and I am not ignorant of the news, and this article UTTERLY FAILS to convey what I know of the city. It might as well have been written by the Detroit Chamber of Commerce. Sorry, but there should be at least ONE picture of a dilapidated building! The list of sections gives no hint of problems. There is nothing that says, "This is a city that is struggling". Detroit's problems have made it iconic! The kind of serious editing needed by this article is not appealing to me, and neither is the resistance such editing will likely encounter. But what the heck! Maybe I'll hang around a while. --Taquito1 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Regrettably, I think the edits today (yesterday?) illustrate the problem I was talking about above. Parts of the article are practically a shambles, and attempts to clean it up run into disheartening resistance and reversions. How will this article ever get fixed until at least one probably well-meaning but seemingly-misguided editor changes his/her ways? I am not going to invest time right now chasing down policies, but I am completely certain that that kind of editing can ultimately lead to an account getting temporarily banned. --Taquito1 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Crime I made some updates to crime data. More needs to be done. I tried to document the sources, but found it a little tricky. If you can see how to fix the references, please do. It seems to me the FBI Uniform Crime Reports have the kind of data that should be uncontroversial and meaningful. I suggest more improvements in that vein. Detroit is a leader in crime rates, and crime is a significant aspect of the city. Such information may warrant a separate article, but it should not be pushed off of the main page. --Taquito1 (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Racial and Ethnic Composition It looks like there were a number of changes bordering on edit warring, about racial composition. I provided a sourced, balanced (I believe), and relevant statement which I hope ends that controversy. Please do not revert without discussion here. I also changed the name of the section, because "Ethnic groups" was not strictly correct for racial groups, while "Hispanic" appears in my source as an ethnic group. So now the title has both. That shouldn't be controversial. I also deleted the "see also Hmong Americans" link, because a "see also" should be an elaboration on the main topic, and Hmong, while very interesting, are a fraction of a percent of the population, and are clearly a tangential topic. I think the whole section needs much improvement. The bit about white flight leaves the reader wondering whether they are coming or going. May I recommend that editors try to leave good change comments and discuss here? --Taquito1 (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Public schools and charter schools The public schools scored record lows on national tests in 2011, and the charter schools did even worse than the public schools. The statement, "Public and charter school students in the city have had mixed results on standardized tests," failed to capture the magnitude of the problem. I think the whole section could use improvement. I believe I read something in the Huffington article about the city's emergency manager running the schools, and funding crises, and so forth. The charter schools were supposed to be a solution, but it sounds like they are worse than the original problem. The section can probably be improved to capture this state of things.--Taquito1 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Antoine Laumet—Not a Nobleman I know this could be a controversial change, so let me explain my most recent edit. The Wikipedia article on Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac and other sources make it clear that Antoine Laumet assumed a false identity and false nobility when he arrived in New France. He was not noble, and nobility was not bestowed on him, even if he did become Governor. So, John Doe may freely assume the name James Smith, and we should respect his choice. However, if he falsely claims titles of nobility, it is not technically correct for others to use them. Now, we can argue for Laumet's case on the basis of long custom, but all I see is a bunch of sources repeating the same mistake. And since our article here made the patently false statement that he was a nobleman, and I deleted that without hesitation, it seems natural enough to also delete the false titles, custom notwithstanding. If anyone believes "Antoine Laumet" is wrong, maybe we should consider "Antoine Laumet de la Mothe de Cadillac", or "Antoine Laumet de la Mothe Cadillac". Let's discuss it here. If you do revert, please do not restore "and nobleman"...that is a blatant error.--Taquito1 (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Wiki can and does say he is not noble, but it can't change the name RS use. Here's the '"American National B iography scholarly entry: "Lamothe Cadillac, Antoine Laumet de (5 Mar. 1658-15 Oct. 1730), founder of Detroit and governor of French Louisiana, was born at Les Laumets, department of Tarn-et-Garonne, France, the son of Jean Laumet, a provincial magistrate, and Jeanne Péchagut. Born a commoner, Antoine Laumet invented a noble pedigree, complete with the particle de and the alias Lamothe Cadillac by which he has come to be known...." Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I restored Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac (but not the "and nobleman"). In addition to Rjensen's RS argument, "Cadillac" is the name which is most closely associated with him - not using "Cadillac" does a disservice to the reader. On your other options, I don't (yet) have an opinion, other than the discussion should probably occur on the Cadillac page, and not here. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Rjensen and Andrew Jameson. I agree, my change to "Antoine Laumet" was not correct, and had no reliable source! The "American National Biography" entry appears to suggest "Antoine Laumet de Lamothe Cadillac". That may be the right name to use, but such a change must start at the Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac article. More importantly, I have seen enough variations on the name, with disagreements between seemingly reliable sources, that probably NO change should be made until someone has done enough research to determine what is the correct usage for Wikipedia. --Taquito1 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Demographics The Demographics section is pretty jumbled and lacks balance. It will be a tricky process, but I intend to divide it into three subsections: population, income/employment, and race/ethnicity. If it can be done, I hope each subsection will cover approximately: current situation, historical data, and comparisons to other cities as applicable. There other metrics we could consider including in demographics, like education, health, age data, religion, politics, etc. I am aware of the article Demographic history of Detroit, and maybe it can take some of the load, but, to be frank, I was not impressed with that article either. It looks to me like someone created it to sanitize the Detroit article, and it has been neglected ever since. --Taquito1 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I made the initial division into three subsections. Next step is to organize each subsection, since they are kind of a dump of data. As part of that, it will be evident that content can be reduced, and gaps will be identified. I looked at Wikipedia articles for other cities' demographics sections, and I recognize that this division goes further than most. I plead Wikipedia:Be bold. Any editor inclined to join this effort is welcome to step in. Please leave edit summaries and discuss here as appropriate.--Taquito1 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I just deleted population information on Oakland County, Metro Detroit, and Detroit-Windsor area. I think this material is not properly part of the Detroit article. Please discuss here if you disagree.--Taquito1 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The material places the context. This is a major city in the USA, and its needs context of its area. Please do not remove good content from the article. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The population and economic details of the larger region are not appropriate. Certainly Detroit can be described as having regional influence, especially historically. Today, the influence has shrunk, and Detroit is no longer calling the shots in the region. See Robert J. S. Ross and Kent C. Trachte in Global Capitalism: The New Leviathan, page 146, for one. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The context of the city in the region is important. Its a major city in the USA and needs the context of its major metropoltian area. The context illustrates the relative size and influence of the city in comparision to the region. Please do not remove good content from the article. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC) No, the city's influence is waning. See page 2 of Detroit and Rome: Building on the Past by Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, Michele V. Ronnick and Marlise Beaudoen, for another source describing Detroit's fall. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The context of the city in the region is important. Its a major city in the USA and needs the context of its major metropoltian area. The context illustrates the relative size and influence of the city in comparision to the region. The city's change within the region is placed in context, the context is relevant and the information is relevant. Your point shows its important to include the information in context of its major metropolitan area. The city now has represenatives on regional boards. Please do not remove good content from the article.ThanksThomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Wrong. Here are the arguments, point by point. "The name Detroit sometimes refers to Metro Detroit"... this is not proven to be an important point, having no cited source. The populations of Metro Detroit (the MSA and CSA) are not indicative of Detroit's fading population. If there is a story to be told it would be about white flight or some other indication that people have moved away from Detroit. "The Detroit-Windsor area, a critical commercial link straddling the Canada-U.S. border, has a total population of about 5,700,000." The source does not say "critical link" and it does not describe Detroit's role. The precise population is unimportant here. "Immigration continues to play a role in the region's projected growth." Bah-loney. The cited source (archived version) says "immigration was the smallest component of population change" in the Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CSA. The source says nothing at all about the city of Detroit as a separate entity. " Oakland County in Metro Detroit is among the more affluent counties in the U.S. with more than one million people." No. The city of Detroit is not a positive factor in the affluence of Oakland County. The cited source, "Oakland still ranks among the nation's wealthiest counties", says that Oakland failed to make Forbes' list of 25 top counties, but that the county itself uses a different system than Forbes, a per capita system of income calculation rather than per household. In the Oakland system, the county has fallen from the 4th to the 10th wealthiest US counties with a population of a million or more. If anything, the article should discuss how Detroit pulls the county's average down! The story is that Oakland has fallen, definitely not that Detroit is affluent. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The recession has affected various statistics across the nation. There's no need to nit pick here and there since the recent recession has caused fluctuations across the whole U.S. The suburbs, Oakland are still among the more affluent areas in the U.S. The Detroit area as a whole is among the areas recovering from the recession (multimillion dollar home sales have surged in Metro Detroit making it the second fastest growing, home prices are recovering rapidly in the Detroit area [10]). The immigration source is cited correctly and does point out later that immigration plays a signficant role in the population growth for the area (43.5% of the increase). Immigration projections would not purport to project the exact address of where the immigrants would choose to live in the area, however the city proper is the beneficiary of immigrants. The auto industry recovery is having a significant positive impact. Its a major city in a major metropolitan area, so its relevant to include the city in the context of its region, and not to conceal the regional context. It would be inappropriate to attempt to isolate the major city from its major metropolitan region for an enyclopedic article. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) What? We are not talking about a recession here, we are talking about Detroit tanking while other cities thrive. The "fluctuations" experienced elsewhere have been represented in Detroit by numbers going down, down, down. Detroit has no increase in multimillion dollar home sales, so trying to point to the success of the suburbs is faulty. The population in Detroit is not growing; it is stagnant, with new births and immigrant populations just barely replacing deaths and people leaving out of frustration. In that sense, immigration is part of the dynamic balance, not the growth, of Detroit's population. There is no auto industry recovery in Detroit, so don't try and fool the reader. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Folks, I was disappointed to see an edit war come out of the population section. I didn't think it was controversial to remove population information for areas that are not part of the city of Detroit. After all, those areas have their own separate articles, and Detroit links to them...what more context do we need? But Wikipedia is about compromise, so I have made changes in that spirit. I strongly believe regional population data should not be in this article, but I suppose I can tolerate it if it is shown under a heading that should prevent confusion. I think it is ludicrous, but it is compromise. If anyone disagrees with separating it, and thinks it should be as it was before, please give a reasoned explanation. --Taquito1 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC) In "Population of Detroit" (as opposed to "...surrounding areas"), I added a statement about the population collapse after 1950 resulting in large numbers of abandoned houses and commercial buildings and areas of the city hit hard by urban decay. I can't imagine that being controversial, as it is the main theme you get when you Google "Detroit". I left the source as "citation needed", only because I haven't yet chosen which source to cite...there are plenty. Please do not delete on the basis of RS, at least for a couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquito1 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I added several sources. Because it is a compound statement, I found it difficult to come up with single source that stated it all, so I cited five. The alternative is to break up the statement into several, but I do not think it is necessary. I am completely open to trimming the list, but I hope editors will agree that the evidence is there. The National Post is a source that some don't like due to its perceived political leaning, but it had some excellent graphics directly on topic, and I saw no reason to exclude it. The Australian real estate article is from the opposite side of the world, but they appear to have done real research, and researched house prices and so forth.--Taquito1 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Decline of Detroit Section I think the article deserves a section dedicated specifically to the decline of Detroit. Details can be tucked away in "Population", "Income and Employment", "Economy", "Cityscape", and "Crime", but that does a disservice to the reader, who may be coming to the article as I was specifically to read about this part of the city. While this may appear to be tarnishing the city's image, I have to reply: it is--Taquito1 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC) what it is. Besides, by presenting this stuff in a section instead of scattering it throughout, you could view it as just one face of a multifaceted city. I have seen that Wikipedia's city articles seem almost to follow a template. Adding a "Decline of Detroit" section will not match any city article I have seen, but that does not trouble me...Wikipedia is not intended to be entirely formulaic. Opinions pro and con are welcome, of course. --Taquito1 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Yes there should be such a section. Arguably, the material is worthy of its own article, summarized here at this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, the seperate article idea is a good one, but we need to make sure that having a separate decline section does not remove important details about the decline elsewhere in the article (of course there aren't too many of those around anyway).--Philpill691 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I made the new section. The name ("Decline of Detroit") might be improved. I agree entirely that it warrants an independent article and should be summarized here. May beone exists, or History of Detroit may serve the purpose. At present, I only put in a few highlight sentences. The real pay-off, in terms of article quality, should come next, as material scattered in other sections is consolidated here. The result should be the other sections are cleaner, and this one should tell (or summarize) this facet of Detroit in a holistic way. It is funny, on a personal note, I am finding myself starting to like this city!--Taquito1 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I reread your comment PhilPill691, and realize I misunderstood at first. I understand now, I think, that you mean that a "Decline" section should not be used to water down the other sections. That is a good point, and it will require a sensitive approach to achieve the right balance in each affected section. It seems to be a common Wikipedia flaw, that we end up with jumbled, incoherent paragraphs and sections. Let's avoid that if we can. The economy section, for example, might emphasize a positive outlook, but it should also note something of the grim side as well. Or maybe it is nearly ALL grim...I don't know.--Taquito1 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC) A well-written source for the "Decline" section is Rebecca Solnit's "Detroit Arcadia" article from 2007. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Well-written indeed! I added material to "Decline of Detroit" using that source for reference, but it has much more to contribute. One thing I contemplate is a section like "Decline and Revitalization of Detroit". That source had some very positive-sounding things in that vein. Problem is, the revitalization it speaks of is all about urban gardening and the return of nature! Positive, yes, but hardly what is normally understood by "urban renewal". I have seen much else that is relevant, like Detroit143...ironically, its website is temporarily shut down for lack of funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquito1 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Twice now the Decline section has been removed by Thomas Paine1776 and restored by me. Thomas Paine1776 moved much of the information to the Economy section but I think the city's decline is very much its own topic, based not just on the economy but to a complex interaction of the failure of the Michigan automobile industry, lousy business predictions, racism/white flight and crime. The Decline of Detroit is notable on its own, so of course the city article should discuss it, even after an article is written about the decline. Sources to use for writing the Decline article: "Detroit's Beautiful, Horrible Decline", Time photo essay "Detroit's Tragic Decline Is Largely Due To Its Own Race-Based Policies", Investors.com op-ed "The Decline of Detroit", About.com "The Last Days of Detroit by Mark Binelli – review", The Guardian UK "Haunting Images Of Detroit's Decline (PHOTOS)", Huffington Post "Derelict Detroit: Gloomy pictures chart the 25-year decline of America's Motor City", The Daily Mail UK "Bleak Photos Capture The Fall Of Detroit", Business Insider "Michigan: Decline in Detroit", Time, October 1961 "Stuck in reverse, Detroit edges closer to bankruptcy", ABC News "Detroit: Metaphoropolis", The Economist "Detroit's slow-motion decline chronicled", USA Today "American Gothic: Albert Kahn and the Decline of Detroit", Der Spiegel "Detroit's story: decline or revival?", Detroit News op-ed Detroit Divided by Reynolds Farley, Sheldon Danziger, Harry J. Holzer USA in Decline by David J. Phillips: chapter 6 is "Decline of Detroit" Design After Decline: How America Rebuilds Shrinking Cities by Brent D. Ryan After the Factory: Reinventing America's Industrial Small Cities by James J. Connolly. "Perhaps no major city in the United States today looks more beleaguered than Detroit..." The Death of Detroit by Daniel Greenup Redevelopment and Race: Planning a Finer City in Postwar Detroit by June Manning Thomas Rise and Fall of an Urban School System: Detroit, 1907-1981 by Jeffrey Mirel Detroit: Race and Uneven Development by Joe T. Darden, June M. Thomas, Richard C. Hill Whose Detroit?: Politics, Labor, and Race in a Modern American City by Heather Ann Thompson The Ruins of Detroit by Yves Marchand, Romain Meffre, Robert Polidori Detroit and Rome: Building on the Past by Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, Michele Valerie Ronnick, Marlise Beaudoen The Unreal Estate Guide to Detroit by Andrew Herscher The Reckoning by David Halberstam Working Detroit: The Making of a Union Town by Steve Babson Detroit City Is the Place to Be: The Afterlife of an American Metropolis by Mark Binelli Detroit: An American Autopsy by Charlie LeDuff Ctrl+Alt+Delete: Detroit in the Age of Obsolescence by Rupinder Singh Reimagining Detroit: Opportunities for Redefining an American City by John Gallagher Who Killed Detroit? by Johannes F Spreen After the "Decline" article is written I would think that its most pertinent statistics would be added to this more general Detroit article such that this article continues to host a "Decline" section containing perhaps three paragraphs of summary. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I agree. If nobody else wants to start the new article then I can do it. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC) The article should maintain a neutral point of view, as a subsection it can have some balance.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Economy I did a variety of clean-up in the "Economy" section. It needs more. I question whether the list of companies relocating, setting up offices, etc. needs to be here. Maybe I am wrong. "Detroit Community Scrip" seems non-notable; the source says they printed off something like $4300 in scrip that is in circulation, and it is used by a handful of bars and stuff. I want to delete that. It has its own Wikipedia article. All references should be checked--some do not say what they are purported to say. Also, a lot of claims are pretty dated, and I want to know how things are now. For example, did the automotive lithium battery plants get built? There is much talk of an automotive industry recovery, from several years ago...do things still look rosy? Did GM's investment in fuel cell cars work out? (Reference was from 2001!) A lot has happened since then! --Taquito1 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Deleted Detroit Community Scrip, not significant to Detroit's economy. Discuss here if you disagree. --Taquito1 (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Deleted statement on GM investment in fuel cell cars. The source was from 2001. Neither that source nor any others I found showed any significance of GM's fuel cell investment to Detroit's economy. Also deleted Chrysler's investment in biodiesel...it was unsourced and I found no evidence that it is significant to Detroit's economy. Discuss here if you disagree. --Taquito1 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Deleted the lithium ion battery plants. One, A123 Systems, got built in neighboring Livonia (not in city of Detroit), and has since gone bankrupt and was sold to a Chinese competitor. The other, LG Chem-Compact, is headquartered in Oakland County, not Wayne County, and the battery plant got built in Holland, MI, quite far from Detroit. And it may not be so rosy, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquito1 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Cleaned up references in the last two paragraphs. Several problems: a couple did not work, one was out of date (talked of GM IPO in future tense), and one was not sufficiently relevant (Ohio based automotive supplier, no mention of Detroit). The Brooking Institution reference is actually a strong endorsement of the idea of economic recovery (although in the Metro Detroit area, not necessarily in the city), and it could be used elsewhere in the article, if we say Detroit is recovering. I still think all this Detroit area stuff does not belong in the Detroit article. There are other articles for that. --Taquito1 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Added subsections to "Economy", for "Detroit" and "Surrounding Areas". This came after the exchange in the next talk section, "So, about that recovery...". I see some merit in comparisons between Detroit and Metropolitan Detroit, which Andrew Jameson is maybe touching on in his comment. But this split makes it easy to see the clarity that will result from a Detroit-city-focused approach. Once we have a clean division between Detroit and Metro, we can judiciously bring elements together for a more disciplined comparison, rather than the jumble we had. Seeing the result of this split, I want to a) carry on with it, and b) move the Metro stuff out of this article entirely, except what is necessary to give meaning here. Doing that while following the spirit of Andrew Jameson's comments will be difficult. I can't promise my work will be right on the first pass. --Taquito1 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) So, about the recovery... Google "Detroit recovery" and you will find reliable, recent sources that speak gushingly of Detroit's revival. It makes me wonder what is right for this article. I think it is clear that the article must cover Detroit's dramatic decline. And, while we don't want to be Pollyannas about its present condition, which is certainly far below its peak, we do need to show that things may have turned around. Care is needed. I see a lot of articles that speak of "revitalization", but actually mean the return of nature, urban gardening, funky cafes in converted factories, or graffiti art studios. That's all nice, and may merit a mention in the article, but it is not the recovery we are speaking of. And speaking of care, "Detroit" can mean Metro Detroit, the Detroit area, the automobile industry, or Detroit proper. It seems to me that we need a clear approach—a policy, even—with respect to the proper scope of the article. I think it is wrong to conflate Detroit with Metro Detroit. There may very well be an automotive industry revival in the Detroit area, while Detroit sputters along. This article should make the distinction and its scope very clear. To speak of a revival that does not significantly include the city does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Here is my preference, but I encourage others to speak their minds also. I said in another comment that subsections of "demographics" could include: current situation, historical data, and comparison to other cities. Following that pattern, it would seem proper to observe, for example, that unemployment is high and incomes are low, but the current trend for two years has been improving, and there is reason to expect continued improvement. And then we go on to speak of the history...how it got to the the current condition. But, again, I think it is an important task, and a very challenging one, to get rid of material about anything outside Detroit proper, unless a source establishes a link to the city itself. I will try to edit accordingly, but it is never too late to speak up. Leave your opinion here.--Taquito1 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I agree that any conflating of Detroit with Metro Detroit should be avoided. Going further, sources that compare Metro Detroit to the city of Detroit will shed some light on any disparities that exist. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Addressing your first paragraph, part of the issue is that popular media stories - even sober stories from those sources that are highly reliable - are focused on subjects that the writers hope will be interesting and intriguing. It's easy to find articles about the wastelands of Detroit, because people love to read about ruin porn; it's easy to find articles about scrappy entrepeneurs opening funky cafes, because people love to read about idealistic kids making a go of it; it's easy to find articles about urban farming, because people love to read about "new ideas" and "urban re-use." Unfortunately, even in the aggregate, these articles don't really tell the whole story in an encyclopedic way, because the focus is on the dramatic and the exceptional, to the exclusion of the mundane and the ordinary. There is Detroit recovery, but it's slow and somewhat mixed (both temporally and geographically). I know that sounds like bitching (and it probably is, honestly), but my point is that I'm not too surprised that you're finding stories on "revitalization" that are over-heavy on the oddball. My suggestion would be to differentiate by geographical regions of the city - not necessarily in the main article itself, but just as a way to sort through the importance of various sources. For example, you'll find a lot of revitilization and recovery in the Midtown area (in a true, people-moving-in sense, not in the funky-cafe-opens sense), due in large part to Wayne State and the DMC. To a lesser extent, you'll find recovery in the downtown area, from the stadiums and companies moving in. That revitilization affects those neighborhoods and some of the surrounding ones, but there are still wide swaths of the east side that are getting worse, not better. And there are neighborhoods that are simply plodding along, relatively stably. Finally, I'm not sure you can avoid mixing Detroit and Metro Detroit, at least in the sense of averall trends. Sure, there's a wide variety of economic conditions in the area, so talking about the relative wealth of Oakland County is really irrelevant to Detroit itself, but the whole area is linked, and saying "Detroit is recovering" means both the whole area and the city - it's a rising (or falling) tide that carries all boats. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Two well thought-out comments--Binksternet and Andrew Jameson. I will need to reread them as I continue working with this article. I think I understand the points you are both making, but finding sources that do what you are talking about will take some serious research, and using sources wisely will take some maturity. Andrew, your first paragraph is insightful. It should be required reading for editors. It touches directly on a real problem for Wikipedia: it is not enough to have a reliable source. We need to think about other things like relevance, context, balance (an oft-misused word I think!), and maybe the difficult question, "What does this fact actually mean?" I sense that mastering the approach you speak of would make the difference between a normal article and a great article, but mastering it is the necessary step. I can't totally agree with the last sentence--long-term improved regional economy SHOULD improve all areas, to one degree or another, but that sounds like an article of faith. I can easily imagine an economic boom that floated the suburbs while leaving the city itself foundering. Like I said, this is something to reread! --Taquito1 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Decline of Detroit I have made a new Decline of Detroit article per previous discussion (which someone has managed to delete). Please help out in building up this new article.--Philpill691 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for making the new article! I will jump in with some recommendations in a minute. Note that all past discussions are still viewable in the talk page archives—they were not deleted. The relevant "Decline" discussions are these ones: Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive6#Accuracy of article Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive6#Balance Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive6#Detroit: biased article Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive6#Decline of Detroit Section Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive6#So, about the recovery... There was also some discussion in 2007 (Talk:Detroit, Michigan/archive3) about the lead section and how to approach the issue of decline. Not surprisingly, Thomas Paine1776 is vocal in his opposition to any negative information. This NPOV problem has been going on so long I think it is about time for an RFCU. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Yes I am aware of the archiving system... sorry for the negligent wording. As for Thomas Paine1776, I have been noticing his highly POV edits for a good bit of time now. Now that I see that this has been going on for so long, I must agree that something has to be done about this. Have a good day! --Philpill691 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Crucially, we were able to open up the Detroit page to reality (with references) by supporting one another in the face of a bully. Thomas Paine1776, go and edit the Somalia page. Inform the world why Mogadishu is a happy and a stable place, that is being revitalised. Be sure to show plenty of sterile pictures of buildings. And whatever you do, don't show photos of the local residents, or have the article contain any information about the actual people who live there. Pepesia (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Decline section I have moved the decline section up to immediately after the history section to make the sequence of the article more logical. People trying to learn about the recent decline of Detroit are going to look in the vicinity of the "History" section, not between the "Law and government" and "Education" sections. --Philpill691 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I agree, but I thought making it a subsection of "History" would be best. Also, I think the "Crime" subsection should go under "Law and government" as seems to be typical in city articles. --Local hero talk 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I moved the Crime subsection as you suggested, but haven't moved the Decline section (yet). --Philpill691 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)