Talk:Atlanta/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Possible Politically-Motivated Overhaul to History Section

I think the history section is very impressive, and has served the page well for the several years it has been up. While edits and improvements should certainly be made, I don't think it's necessary nor appropriate to institute a complete overhaul of the section by reducing the info about the Civil War and increasing info about 20th century racial politics. Also, I am suspicious of edits that are made just so an editor can introduce articles he or she has created. Lastly, the 20th century was but one era and should not dominate the whole article. There must be a balance, which I think the present writing adequately achieves. Thus, I think the section is fine as it is and I oppose any politically motivated overhaul to the history section.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmann1988 has characterized my opinions as politically motivated. I fail to see what political motive I have, I am merely suggesting that the content needs to reflect topics that are under-represented in the article: Trends such as blockbusting, the history of the political machine and the change of power when blacks became the majority in 1970, white flight and the growth of the suburbs/exurbs, influx of people and companies from outside the South, building of the freeway system and demise of streetcars/trolleybuses... those are the factors that truly change what Atlanta was vs. what it is. I will continue to make edits topic by topic on each subject and would request that other editors review their content for what it is... not as a part of some political motive.Keizers (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Stripping Civil War History and GWTW tends to have a political motive. A "political machine" is political theory, not historical fact. Change of power is already included. White flight is fine, as long as we don't delve too much into the why of white flight.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding historic milestones of the 20th century

I added back in some very important historic facts from the mid-20th century including blockbusting and white flight. These trends completely transformed the landscape of the city. Atlanta's history cannot be understood without understanding these trends, which is why I am arguing to include them. The 20th century section of history is now only slightly longer than the 19th century part (and keep in mind, the city didn't even exist for all of the 19th). I agree the history section needs to be shortened, but believe this can be done by suppressing excessive detail in the 19th century part, and some fine tuning of sentences, rather than eliminating major socio-political trends from the 20th century.

I did shorten the texts to the absolute minimum due to concerns that the texts were too long. The amount of detail included is considerably less than the detail given to other events in the article.Keizers (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The history section is supposed to just be an overview. It cannot include every single event. There is simply too much info covering 1950s and 1960s. Those are only two decades, yet they take up 5 paragraphs. They need to be consolodated into two paragraphs--one covering the 1950s and one covering the 1960s. I went ahead and tried it, and it required taking sutff out, but considering the 1950s and 60s are only 20% of the 20th century, they should not dominate this much. If anything, the 1980s should have a paragraph, yet it is not even mentioned. Not every event can be mentioned. The 1917 Atlanta fire is not mentioned. Neither is the 2008 tornado. Niether is the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree the history section of the main article cannot contain every single event. Again I am saying that there were fundamental events and trends missing. At this point I would say my additions have rectified that, except for the explicit mention of how neighborhoods turned over and entire sections of the city became 100% black. To someone who lives in the City of Atlanta, that is definitely a fundamental historic trend. As is the renaissance of Intown Atlanta.

I also still agree the article is too long, minutiae should still be removed from other paragraphs (e.g. all the detail about "Thrasherville"). I'd still like to work on that. As for balance across decades I see your point that there's nothing there about the 80s. Perhaps that is because nothing of note happened then, whereas in mid-century there was more change than had ever happened in the city of Atlanta, other than its burning and rebirth.

I'm making some small edits to make sure the text remains correct in terms of cause and effect e.g. blockbusting was actually what completely countered the efforts to keep neighborhoods white. Freeway system construction drove exodus to the suburbs not really the automobile. Keizers (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Fixed edits that made statements incorrect. White flight affected 'hoods *across* the city."

"Across the city" is a very broad term.It affected some neighborhoods on the east, some neighborhoods on the west, and most neighborhoods on the south. It definitely affected the west and south the most. No northern neighborhoods were affected.

"BUT the entire west- and southside (not just some) became virtually 100% black. This is referenced (census data will also prove), so no need to tone down."

Incorrect. The "entire" south side and west side did not become "virtually 100% black". Those are very absolute terms. West End retained white residents, as did Home Park, Whittier Mill, Home Park, Loring Heights, Berkley Park, etc. And even the other parts of the west side were never "virtually 100% black". There is no such thing as "virtually 100% black". It's either 100% or it isnt, and it wasnt. That's offensive to the white residents who did stay, and to whites who didn't flee. Please try to be a bit more sensitive to the other side too. Not every white person simply picked up an left!

"After forced-housing patterns were outlawed, violence, intimidation and organized political pressure were used to discourage blacks from buying homes in white neighborhoods."

Not every white neighborhood engaged in these tactics. SOME did. Please tone down the absolutes! Its very offensive to southerners who weren't involved yet lived in these areas.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK yes you are correct on both points in that they were not absolutes. I still think that saying "many" neighborhoods on the west and south side gives a very different impression than the reality which is that the northwest west and southsides became overwhelmingly black - neighborhoods with minimal %ages of other races and without pockets of whites - only some white or mixed neighborhoods at the very edges (Home Park or Whittier Mills...) I will have to go crunch some historic census data by zip code to craft the exact sentence which is 100% true but still conveys the true essence of what happened.Keizers (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why dont you just say "the majority"? is an exact percentage really necessary? And im just wondering--why does EVERYTHING have to be focused on race? It seems like thats all you have been contributing to the article. Not everyone is so focused on it.--Mmann1988 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just think there is a big difference between a word like "many" and the reality which is "almost entirely" (say, 90%+). As for race - if you look at my overall contributions you'll see I contribute what I believe are important points about Atlanta whatever they may be. Racial issues just happen to be amongst the most important in terms of Atlanta's history, that's all. As for AUC, it is the most important HBCU in the country (when taken as a whole) - why opposition to calling it out as such? I am too tired to edit it back in. But, lastly, I put back the 2010 stats, your edit replaced them with the old 2006 stats and I cannot imagine that was intentional.Keizers (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine I just dont want readers to get the impression that there was no white/mixed neighborhoods left on the westside. Maybe "the majority of neighborhoods on the westside transitioned to almost entirely black"? And I dont mean to come off as combative, I just think we have different views on the role race has played in Atlanta's history (i think the role it played is minimal and ended in the 1950s). As for AUC, I think it should be included in the "elite college" paragrpaph, that lists Agnes Scott, Emory, Tech, GSU, and Mercer. Putting it in its own paragraph implies it is not in the same league as those schools. Also, i took out the 2006 numbers and replaced with 2010 but left the main message of that source, which was that Atlanta #1 in the nation for white pop. growth. --Mmann1988 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Colleges and Universities missing

As a student at one of the colleges and universities that are not listed, I think it is imperative that such institutions are listed as they are deeply rooted in Atlanta, Ga as institutions where scholars such as W.E.B Dubois taught and students like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to receive an education that advanced him n his mission to fight for Civil Rights. These institutions are also Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's) and Religious Institutions that deserve recognition on this page as well seeing as though they have made great history and they are exceptionally well colleges and universities like the others named. The colleges and universities I am referring to are as follows, Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Spelman College, The Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC) and Morris Brown College. Four of these universities,Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Spelman College, The Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC) make-up 'the Atlanta University Center' (AUC). Please revise this section. There is no way that the AUC,and other HBCU's were overlooked.

signed (Kiamiss202Queen (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

A couple people have now added information about the AUC. Keizers (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the AUC colleges. However, it belongs in the paragraph with Tech and Emory. It doesn't need to be segregated in it's own paragraph.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AUC doesn't need its own paragraph, but it does need to be recognized as the largest HBCU campus. That's a relevant fact. Keizers (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Keizers, Thank-You so very much for your honest input, I really do appreciate you not taking it personally and answering to the best of your knowledge.

In regards to Mmann1988 This is what I wrote--> "I think it is imperative that such institutions are listed", no where in this paragraph did I say the above listed HBCU's deserve their "own" paragraph. I do not think that HBCU's deserve special privileges. I just think that in the colleges and Universities paragraph, that they need to be listed individually as where the other institutions in Atlanta, GA in the section of colleges and universities. Thank-You. (Kiamiss202Queen (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

File:Montage Atlanta 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Montage Atlanta 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Atlanta tpb 2008 concept 3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Atlanta tpb 2008 concept 3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) 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 Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

History of Atlanta 2000-2010

I have made some deletions in this section. It had an entire paragraph about young people moving into Downtown Atlanta and surroundings but was completely missing some other facts such as:

• all public housing demolished
• 2000-2010 most suburban growth in outer counties beyond Cobb & Gwinnett
• 2008 recession - economy hard hit, empty condos

In order to mention these other important trends and create some balance, I shortened the details about young people moving in and cultural offerings:

• deleted "45 new restaurants opened Downtown from 2008 to mid-2011." - restaurants open in many parts of Atlanta, and the suburbs, this doesn't really say enough.
• "From 2000 to 2009, the three-mile radius surrounding Downtown Atlanta gained 9,722 residents aged 25 to 34 holding at least a four-year degree, an increase of 61%

I undid your revision because it has some major flaws.

• Destruction of projects - eh, not really that notable, and this is still ongoing and started in the early 90s.
• Suburban growth does not belong on the Atlanta page - the Metro Atlanta page is the proper place for that.
• 2008 Recession - Hasn't every city in America been hit hard? The real estate market crashed everywhere. This goes without saying it affected Atlanta.

The 2000s was a decade of enormous change for Atlanta, and that is what the decade is known for. Just as the 1960s is only talked about in terms of civil rights. Not every trend from every decade can be included. Your agenda is showing again.--Mmann1988 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am putting most of it back for the following reasons:

• the systematic removal of all public housing from a city is, in my opinion of major importance, and after further research you are correct it started in 1994. It did mostly stop in 2010 as the HOPE IV act expired then.
• I do think it's of relevance to the City of Atlanta that growth of *its* region is in the exurbs, I can make the mention more brief though
• I think the mention of the recession is brief and relevant - the condo glut is relevant, it has really been affecting us Intown; yet the restaurants/nightclubs/etc. are still flourishing despite that, that is also a relevant fact
• Putting back that very lengthy text which just goes on and on about restaurants and the exact percentages of growth in college educated 25-34 year olds is totally out of balance. I know you are trying to keep a theme here, but that is just way too much. You can't just have a theme for each decade and then leave out important trends that don't fit into the decade's one theme.
• Please stop personal attacks. You know that it's not appropriate on Wikipedia. Am I harping on race simply because I find the razing of all the public housing important? I think that's completely normal when you live *in* the city and that is something that impacts you as a city resident in a huge way. Quite different than what is relevant to people in the suburbs whose picture of the city is a caricature limited to the trendy restaurants, cultural and sports facilities and airport. Please go have a look at all the articles I've done in the last few days on antebellum Atlanta buildings. It may make you feel better. Keizers (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored it to the status quo as Wikipedia protocol is to discuss changes before implementing them.

• The public housing removal is ongoing, so it really should not be in the history. There is an entire subsection devoted to ongoing gentrification, and THAT is where the public housing removal should go, as that is why it is signifigant.
• We have tried very hard to keep information about Metro Atlanta and the suburbs out of Atlanta's page. I just don't see how the growth of Forsyth County has relevance on Atlanta's page. Why don't you add your info to Metro Atlanta where it belongs.
• Recession - Fine, if you really think that is necessary.
• Restrautants - I have no problem taking out the exact number. The point is that Atlanta's dining scene has become very sophisticated and refined compared to what it was in 2000, and that should remian.
• Young People - These are statistics and they are important. Statistics provide a factual basis for the assertion. New young residents + New Restauarsnts and Bars + New Cultural offerings is by far the most notable historical aspect of the 2000s, and those stats support it.
• I am not personally attacking you--I just think some people are VERY bothered by what Atlanta has become in recent years. They want the old Atlanta back, the crime-infested, non-diverse, declining 1990s Atlanta and want the Wikipedia article to reflect that. but that is NOT reality. This is the NEW Atlanta.--Mmann1988 (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I give up (for now). I see some of your points, but the fact is that the paragraph is still an extremely wordy, obsessive essay on these young people and the cultural offerings and the restaurants. If that's all that's happened in Atlanta 2000-2010 is some sort of chamber of commerce picture postcard. Let me tell you something that will surprise you, I AM one of these gentrifying folks who lives Intown and enjoys all those things to the max! I just don't think that's the only thing going in in the past decade. It does not reflect the reality of everyday life intown - which is all of those wonderful amenities, but also things like all the public housing going away... transportation or lack thereof ... condo gluts... the relationship to the region...etc. History is not just restaurants, art museums.

And there is a damn typo which is still in there about a "tree" mile radius.

Last point, it de-legitimizes the whole argument about young professionsals to talk about the number of restaurants in Downtown. Downtown? Come on. Downtown is still for visitors and the very rare Fairlie-Poplar pioneer. These young people are enjoying restaurants in Midtown, the Old Fourth Ward, Reynoldstown, Cabbagetown and East Atlanta! Keizers (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Atlanta

Currently, the primary pronunciation of Atlanta is listed as ətˈlæntə, for those who do not know IPA this translates to UT-LAN-TUH. I have lived in the city for all my life and I've never heard anyone pronounce the first sound in the word as an UH combined with pronouncing the T near the end of the word. No one pronounces it this way, not the government, the press, no one in the city or surrounding area. Having the primary pronunciation be such a bizarre pronunciation is confusing and strange. Someone commented that you wouldn't have NEW YAWK as the primary pronunciation for New York, but both of those words, New and York, existed before the city did and standard pronunciation applies. Atlanta is a proper noun in its own right and the local pronunciation æt'lænə should be used. Having it any other way is as weird as having ɛdən'bɚg (Edun-berg) be the proper pronunciation of Edinburgh. 98.192.76.96 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The "UY" needs to go. I have changed it to "AT" instead /ætˈlæntə/, also showing the local variant without the "t". Majoreditor (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Majoreditor, you need to consider the *stress* in this situation. Certainly when people emphasize each syllable, it's AT-LAN-TUH with the "at" like the word "at". The initial ə is not indicating UHT-lanta but rather the unemphasized sound - called a "schwa"- like the "a" in "sofa". Yes it's an "uh" sound but unstressed. And in normal speech, most people say "uht-LAN-tuh" - kind of like "about" is "uh-BOUT". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizers (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Increase in white population

I had edited the section for a second time now and want to explain why this is necessary:

• the text was an extreme belaboring of the point - this is the main article on Atlanta
• It is sufficient to state the % change that it was the #1 increase in major US cities.
• There is no need to quote 2006 numbers - we have the 2010 census in now
• I looked up this Brookings quote and referenced it. (But, type "Atlanta is becoming whiter, and at a pace that outstrips the rest of the nation" and a top result is from Stormfront, a white power organization)
• It makes no sense to say the change in Atlanta "outstrips the nation" - the nation's white population is not increasing (as a %)!
• This is the main article on Atlanta - let's state the facts and truly notable trend and move on, not go on and on, which I think could give the wrong impression, on this subject

Keizers (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

These trends are also temporary and can change rapidly. Since the Great Recession has slowed Atlanta's hiring of young urban professionals, it is likely that the "whitening" of Atlanta has stalled out. In any case, it is not encyclopedic to write this as a "current event," this comment should be re-written, something like "during the 2000-2010 decade, the city of Atlanta's white population increased substantially, in both percentage and total number." This would avoid the mistake of expecting temporary trends to continue.Ryoung122 17:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point Ryoung122 I adjusted accordingly Keizers (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Keizers, it's always the same battle with you. You always want to downplay the increasing diversity of Atlanta. You always want certain groups maximized and other certain groups minimized. There's no belaboring involved. The increasing diversity of Atlanta a major development for this city, and the paragraph has been just fine for every other editor for the past five years. Maybe that's because they don't have an agenda against certain groups like you do. And until the increase in the white population has been proven to be stalled out, it should remain present tense. What proof does Ryoung have? Your willingness to embrace opinions as fact is a major flaw of your editing.--Mmann1988 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack (again), Mmann1988. Look I don't know who the previous editors were but you and I seem to be the only continuously active ones here and there's a difference of opinion here. I do think that the article reads like a Chamber of Commerce brochure and is in many places not encyclopedic. Are we proud of that as Atlantans? That all we can do is pump up the Wikipedia article with tourist brochure adjectives and superlatives to make the city look good with only positive aspects? You talk to me in a condescending manner as if you have a lot of experience with encyclopedic writing, yet the end result of this article is a Chamber of Commerce brochure! Can you explan that? Look, I live here (IN the city) and love it. Ryoung's point was that the present tense wasn't encyclopedic. As for preference for certain ethnic groups, I am trying to represent them fairly as makes sense encyclopedically. At some point, I will provide some better text for the history paragraph about 2000-2010 - that text going on and on and on about white professionals and the whole detailed belabouring about restaurants is an embarrassment. Keizers (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

White professionals??? There you go again. DO YOU EVEN REALIZE THE 2000-2010 PARAGRAPH MAKES NO MENTION OF RACE?? Holy crap. That is so demented. I am not white, but I think its totally obvious you are targeting white people in your edits. You can say whatever you want about that paragraph, but I worked very hard to construct it, and its entirely true. Nothing in it is fabricated, so YOU tell ME, what is un-enyclopaedic about it? Or is it more that you are just uncomfortable with the white population growth in Atlanta (which is why you keep going after the paragraph about white pop. growth and why you deleted Demographics of Atlanta)?

I will fight the implementation of your agenda at every corner. If it means getting the Atlanta page locked, so be it.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just mixed up the two paragraphs that were currently in question. You are quite correct the 2000-2010 paragraph does not mention race. I was referring to the belabored point about white growth in demographics, and then to the belabored point about restaurants in the 2000-2010 paragraph. Both of those are gone now and I think the text is much better due to the resulting edits (including yours). You can continue to accuse me of having an anti-white agenda (or as in the past - you accused me of having a pro-black-and-white anti-diversity agenda, and I will continue to reply that I am just trying to state relevant, important trends in a succinct way, and in proportion to their importance. For example, that the percent increase in Hispanic and Asian residents in the city is high, but that the City of Atlanta still ranks near the bottom in diversity (non-black non-white) among major US cities (and I wish it were not so). However dramatic this interaction seems to be, I believe that slowly but surely the article is improving from Chamber of Commerce boosterism to something more encyclopedic and factual Keizers (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

White population increase: I am not editing the text at this time, but the paragraph about the increase in white population (who cares what the percent was in 2006? We have a census!) is an extreme belaboring of the point, whereas any analysis of the decrease in the black population is systematically edited out.Keizers (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the demographics article because it doesn't contain any additional factual information than what is here in the main article. I clearly stated that in the Edit Summary. Please read what I write there and at least challenge me on the motives I express there rather than guessing at them. Or if you think I am lying then state that I am lying about what I put in the Edit box. I will nominate the Demographics article for deletion and then you can react in that forum if you think the article is worth saving. I think it would be great to have a separate Demographics article if there were any extra information there. By the way did you check out the demographics table that is now in the main Atlanta article? I think we have a LOT better information now because we have every single census figure for all races, Hispanic and foreign born population. Keizers (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of article to "featured" status

I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Atlanta to be a featured article, and I am confident it will be accepted. However, I would like to request that editors refrain from making large-scale edits until we have a picture of what we need to do to take the article to the next level. --Mmann1988 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

2000-2010 history section

Reasons for elimination of some of the existing text:

• "Atlanta completed its transformation into a cosmopolitan city, becoming well known for its cultural offerings" - this is a point of view and requires a reliable neutral source.
• there was a great amount of detail about the trend of more young people, more than there is space for in the headline article. It is sufficient to state the trend.
• The fact that Atlanta was #6 in the country in such growth is not notable, but 61% increase is.
• "As the city's new residents transformed communities long in decline into neighborhoods of choice" - there is no proof that the "new residents" are responsible for the gentrification - most of this gentrification in my experience is by people who already lived here - so it's both some new and many already resident people responsible for the trend - so best not to state the actor
• There is NO "proof" that the city's expanded cultural offerings had anything to do with the increased # of educated young people - this could well be OTP people (i.e. from suburbia), older people, whatever. Restoring such an assertion would really require a reliable source.
• Additional important events in the decade were the increasing importance of Midtown, the tornado and floods, and the approval of the BeltLine.

• I changed the article so it has a more neutral tone. While it is unknown whether gentrification, young people moving in, and cultural expansion are all linked, it is known that they all occurred simultaneously. Thus, I removed the cause-and-effect language.
• The order of importance has always been Downtown, Midtown, and Buckhead. Even if that was not the case, this is a general overview of Atlanta, not Midtown.
• The inclusion of tornado and floods and natural disasters in the history section was the subject of a lengthy debate a couple of years ago. It was agreed they shouldn't be included in the history section, and should go in the geography section, which is where they are today.
• BeltLine fits nicely into the 2000-2009 trends.
• Not all the public housing residents were black; not sure why you think that's the case. My aunt's good friend lived in one and she was Hispanic. Does she not count? In any case, I have seen many reports that most of the "displaced" residents remain in Atlanta, albeit in section 8 housing.--Mmann1988 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

98 percent of the AHA's tenants are black. See: "Reinventing Public Housing", Washington Times. Of course your aunt's good friend counts! But that doesn't mean that there wasn't a very important trend 1995-2010 when almost every single project was demolished, and only the minority were rehoused in mixed-income communities, resulting in something monumental happening to the black poor in this city - and a few other non-black poor. I can never make you happy about identifying trends with race, however reliable sources monitor major race-related trends, I hardly think it's unusual to call out a major trend happening to a major identifiable group in the city (the poor black population) simply because it also happened to a few members of other groups (i.e. 2%) On a related subject, the cause and effect of the black exodus 2000-2010, I can agree that it has not been conclusively proved that there was an exodus of poor blacks from the city, but reliable sources suspect it, considering the large drop in census figures for blacks 2010 vs. 2000. I'll check the language. Keizers (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppression by certain editors and implementation of a racist agenda

I am running up against consistent anti-black bias on the part of the other active editor on this page. For the record I am white (not that it should matter) and live in the City. Anyone who lives in Atlanta knows, and it is well documented, that this is a black mecca, a center of black culture and success in the US. Many would say the #1 such place.

When I started editing this page, the page made almost no mention of any of this - it was relegated to demographic data about the percentage of blacks in the population, period.

The article read (and still reads mostly) as Chamber of Commerce boosterism, and dealt very little with issues about African Americans in Atlanta.

For every important basic trend or fact relating to blacks, whether it be negative or positive, I have had to fight the editor in question for inclusion:

• Most recently to even state that Atlanta is majority black, a black mecca, and a center of the black entertainment industry and state this in the intro as a defining characteristic of the city
• To state that the city is black-majority
• To mention the 1906 race riots as a key historical event
• To mention the destruction of 10% of the city's housing stock (the projects) from 1995-2010 how this affected black Atlanta (98% of AHA tenants are black)
• To explain the black exodus (31,000 people) from the city 2000-2010
• To add the AUC colleges to the list of universities.

Despite blocking any edition of basic facts and trends relating to blacks, the editor in question has fought for lengthy, extensive sections on the growing diversity of the city beyond black and white - a diversity of Hispanics and Asians which is still less than 9% of the city's population. This is extreme favoritism in describing at length the trends regarding Hispanics and Asians vs. those regarding the majority ethnic group of the city.

My "agenda" is to have the Atlanta article describe the important facts and trends about the city, whether those be pleasant or not, and whether those have to do with race or not. I argue against pursuing an agenda which goes to extreme lengths to specifically minimize the black history of, and presence in, the city, and goes to outlandish lengths to present some kind of picture postcard perfect Chamber of Commerce brochure about a mythical sylvan paradise.

We have a wonderful, rich, diverse, interesting city. There's no shame in presenting a factual Wikipedia article about it. Let's not look like yee-haw boosters.Keizers (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Keizers (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the explanations given for the removal of your material, I think the main issue is that you added most of your new material to the lead. The lead should be a summary of the various subsections of the article and not be stand-alone material.

As for your new emphasis of Atlanta as a "black Mecca" and center of black culture, is this an established fact of Atlanta? Is it a well-known thing for Atlanta to be a black culture center, more than say Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, or New York? We always have to be on guard for the danger that a change made to wikipedia without adequate verification can become ingrained as the article starts getting cited outside wikipedia. We have to make sure we're getting it right when we change the emphasis of an article, to make sure that we're merely describing reality, not defining it. That said, if you have good sources that attest to this, it should be included.--Louiedog (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Kiezers, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

• Point 1:Please go check out a World Book Enclyopedia on Atlanta; you won't see "Atlanta is a black mecca" in the intro. The intro is meant to be a general overview of the city. Specifics regarding race, sections of town, culture, history, etc. beyond very general info (ex. "Atlanta was established in 1845" or "The city is home to various ethnic groups") should be placed in other parts. If you want to include Atlanta being a black mecca, the intro is not the place.
• Point 2: I think many black residents of DC feel that thier city is a black mecca. This is purely your point of view you want included, which allures to what Louiedog said. It is stated that Atlanta is majority black. It is stated that the 1906 race riots as a key historical event. It is stated that there was a black exodus (31,000 people) from the city in 2000-2010. The AUC are included in the list of Universities. However, Keizers is still not happy. He wants to include opinions, such as Atlanta is a black mecca, or that it's the center of black entertainment. This is all purely subjective and cannot be supported by facts.
• Point 3He accuses me of being "anti-black." As a minority myself, I am extremely offended by this; in any case, he is the one who is racist. He wants other groups such as Hispanics, Asians, and, yes, whites, excluded from the article. He wants black people to be the sole focus of the article, to the point that every section isn't about Atlanta, but black Atlantans.--Mmann1988 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, a bit of civility in here please. Assume good faith and remember to comment on content, not on editors. If we have good sources attesting that Atlanta is a hub of black culture, we'll include it. If not, we won't. In the meantime, we don't need to comment on other editor's motivations, intentions, or supposed biases.--Louiedog (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave two Ebony articles from different decades calling Atlanta "a" black mecca (I never called it "the" black mecca as the other editor alleges); I gave a recent NYT article calling Atlanta the mecca of black entertainment, and so forth. This is pretty established information which is obvious to most people who live in Atlanta, I could find numerous additional sources. I really don't understand why the other editor disputes those as facts but do recognize a consistent removal of facts and trends relating to African Americans who form the majority of the city's population. Anyway, I moved this information about "black mecca" to the Demographics section as the other editor requested. Keizers (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article could and should say more about how Atlanta is a capitol for black culture, business and society. Editors should work at building upon single sentence which is currently in the demographic section; Keizers, thanks for adding the material. As it's built out it can become a sub-section and may eventually merit mentioning in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I put back something in the intro - Atlanta's status as a black "capital" is not only a key, defining characteristic of what this city is, it also makes it unique in the country. To not have it in the intro as a basic fact about Atlanta is ridiculous. I am tired of acquiescing to people who clearly just don't want to hear anything about black-related aspects of a city that is 56% black, was historically the center of black advancement, and is now a black capital in a unique way. I am sure with additional attention to this discussion from other editors, they will also agree that there has been a systematic suppression of content about black-related in this article for years, and it's high time this ended. Keizers (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong in the intro. It has nothing to do with "minimizing black people," and I want you to stop saying that. Please go to the Miami page; that city is arguably THE Hispanic mecca and yet there is no mention of it in the intro; then, go to San Francisco; that city is arguably THE Asian mecca, and yet there is no mention of it in the intro; then, go to Washington; that city is arguably THE black mecca, and yet there is no mention of it in the intro. I am sick of you thinking black people are the only ones who live in Atlanta and the only people who matter. Yes, Atlanta is unique with its large black population, but that is not the single defining attribute of our city. It is multi-faceted and it is NOT FAIR to include one group in the intro as if they are all that matters to the entire article. The intro is an overview and you are breaking precedence set by every other major city article, and acting quite immature about it as well. You are trying to force this just to prove a point, which is against Wikipedia rules. I am not going to budge just to prove I am not suppressing black-related content.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Keizers, the only thing that belongs in the introduction are things that already appear in the article below in more depth. The intro is meant to be a summary of what's covered in the article. If you can write out a nice, developed section within the article, and we have a consensus that this is a key point of the whole article, then it belongs in the intro. As for now, I think you're overstretching the impact of the sources you've provided. The strongest by far would be the NY Times article, which is not only recent (Nov 2011) but also says exactly what you're trying to say. That said, I'm not sure the whole identity of a city is so strongly defined by a brief newspaper article. I'd say the most appropriate thing would be writing in the #Race_and_ethnicity section that the city has recently acquired a reputation for black culture and entertainment and maybe a very brief note in the lead summarizing the whole race section along the lines of "Though the city has become increasingly white in the past decade, it also has a long-standing tradition as a center of black culture."--Louiedog (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Loodog, thanks for the constructive advice. I am sure I can find more realiable sources to prove a larger point about the special status of Atlanta as a black mecca as being a primary defining characteristic of the city. It is interesting what Mmann1988 pointed out about articles about other major US cities. Example, Miami - one of the basic things anyone should know about Miami is its 70%+ majority Latin American population and that Spanish is at least equal to English in being a language of communication, yet you have to hunt way down in the Demographics section for that info. Seems like people are following a kind of vapid formula for city article intros without regard to importance of key characteristics of a city. In other countries people are not hesitant to mention a defining characteristic in the intro just because it's ethnic. Salvador, Bahia clearly states that Salvador is the center of Afro-Brazilian culture, Nazareth that it's the center of Arab-Israeli culture, and Greater Sudbury that it's heavily influenced by Franco-Ontarians. Anyway I'll work on those references. Keizers (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Black mecca

I have added quite a number of solid references showing that Atlanta is commonly referred to as "a" or "the" black mecca: Atlanta Journal-Constitution (x2), New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, Associated Press, Ebony (3x from 3 decades), Black Enterprise, Atlanta Magazine, Henry Louis Gates and the well respected local Saporta Report.

Again, one of the city's primary defining characteristics is its position as a black mecca, a center of black culture, economic power, and history which is unique. To suppress mentioning this from the intro section is absurd. There can only be one of a couple reasons for it:

• An editor does not wish to any aspect about a particular race/ethnicity in the intro section, no matter how important it is, no matter how fundamental it is to describing in a nutshell, "what a city is" – I would argue that there is no such rule
• We are following some sort of template for city descriptions which omits race/ethnicity – I am unaware of any such template
• An editor feels Atlanta is "too black", that blacks have brought the city down for so many reasons like crime and bad government and is sick of hearing about black people and how Atlanta is black. He or she would like to make up rules that say that any content relating to race or ethnicity must be suppressed and only be located in the Demography section

If my single sentence addition to the intro is reversed, we need to have a discussion in this section about exactly why we cannot have it there – the only fundamental unique characteristic of the city that is suppressed from the intro.

We need to be transparent and air this issue out so that we can be absolutely sure what the consensus is and that we are not suppressing material for the sole reason that it relates to African Americans.Keizersnl (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to note that the above comment from Keizersnl is mine, I am not trying to "sock puppet", I use Dutch Wikipedia and Keizers was taken so I use Keizersnl for Dutch Wikipedia, and when I go there it logs me into all Wiki sites with that ID. I didn't notice that this time.Keizers (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, the distinguished novelist Tom Wolfe chose "Chocolate Mecca" as the title for chapter 1 of A Man in Full, his book about Atlanta. [1].

As best I can tell, many people and several sources have identified Atlanta as a sort of "capitol" for black culture.

I'm supportive of adding material which is supported by reliable sources to the article, and I think that "black mecca" merits inclusion. However, I hope that editors will assume good faith and not question the motives of other editors or seek to tar them as racists. Let's lower the temperature on this talk page and focus on a path forward. Majoreditor (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is fine and the sources are good, but what was added to the article was a clear cut case of undue weight. Demographics sections in general are not split into race and sexuality, let alone, subsplit into the various races. Paragraphs perform this function without the needless segmenting. As per the wikipedia manual of style, the use of bullets is unnecessary, the block quote was too large and served too little purpose, and the entitling of a section "black Mecca" is far too sensationalist for an encyclopedia. The phrase "black Mecca" is well sourced now, due to your research, but as a section title, this is too much. I have edited the contribution down thoroughly.--Louiedog (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not supportive of including this in the intro; if it is included, then I will absolutely insist on including a line about the explosive growth of Asians and Hispanics (and for that matter, whites) in Atlanta, and I will label anyone who refuses to follow the template set by EVERY OTHER MAJOR AMERICAN CITY to be a racist. Kiezers is absolutely out of control, is hijacking the Atlanta page, and is bordering on vandalism. Majoreditor, please direct me to an administrator (perhaps you are one?) so I can see about getting this page locked. Enough is enough.--Mmann1988 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Loodog. As of now, there's not enough material to justify a separate sub-section, per MOS. As more material is added then it may become a subsection, and eventually even merit its own article.

I'm not an admin and can't lock down the page. Should you wish to contact an admin, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm hoping that editors can reach a consensus and move forward. I'm happy to help if there's anything else I can do. Majoreditor (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Specifically including a fact about a racial group (and not others) in the lead

The conflict we're having here is not about the subsection - it's that I am asking to include one sentence in the intro which states Atlanta's unique character as a center of black culture, power, and wealth. It is fundamental to the definition of what Atlanta IS. Another editor is fighting tooth and nail to not have that mentioned in the intro - nominally because either (a) City articles like Miami do not talk about race in their intro (note that many others like Salvador, Nazareth, and Greater Sudbury do) or (b) it is unfair to other races in the city who make up <6% of the population and are not a fundamental aspect of the city. Neither of those are very strong reasons. I think I've proved the point about how fundamental this aspect is to what makes Atlanta, Atlanta.

My question to the other editors or administrators is: Is it unreasonable to want to include one sentence about this in the intro, considering how fundamental I have established it is with numerous (!) sources? Keizers (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I will continue to fight it, because it is entirely inappropriate for an intro section to single out one racial group. It doesn't follow the template set by American cities (last time I checked, Salvador, Nazareth, and Greater Sudbury are NOT American cities), nor does it follow standards set by encyclopedias such as World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. We are all Americans, and in such a multi-ethnic country as America, it would be simply too much to get into the specifics of ethnicity and race in an intro that is only supposed to be a general overview.

And while Hispanics and Asians make up less than 6%, may I remind you that they are the fastest growing segment, and are as much a part of what makes Atlanta, Atlanta. They are very much so a fundamental aspect of the city, and I find any suggestion otherwise insulting.

I don't want to get administrators involved, but if this continues, I will, and I am confident that they will agree with me (just as Loudog and Majoreditor have) and lock the page sans Kiezers contributions.--Mmann1988 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mmann, I hope that you're not discouraging Keizers or others from adding material to the article. Let's focus on adding relevant, balanced, properly-sourced material. In time some of the subsections may merit their own article. In the meanwhile, perhaps we should hold off on adding anything to the lead.

Keizers, it will be helpful to draw some additional material from high-quality sources such as academic articles and scholarly publications. I'm happy to pitch in and help later on -- be it for black, Hispanic, or demographics in general -- but I will be off-wiki for a short period starting this morning due to a medical procedure. Majoreditor (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Majoreditor, I very much appreciate your comments. I am happy with what the other editor is "permitting" me to put in the Demographics section, this conflict is really about the intro section. It goes back to the same two arguments which I find invalid (i.e. what the Miami article does as opposed to other cities in multi-ethnic countries; and that stating a fundamental characteristic about the city in the intro related to the majority ethnic group is somehow "unfair" to other ethnic groups). I would really like some advice about how I can stop the other editor from blocking the inclusion of that one sentence: Atlanta is often called a "Black Mecca" due to its unique concetration of black culture, power and wealth. Keizers (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Majoreditor, I am not discouraging others from adding material. However, I have spent a ton of time improving the Atlanta article, using the World Book as a guide, so that it can reach featured status. That sentence just does not belong in the lead.

If anything, the most noteworthy info about Atlanta's demographics is how many white people are moving into the city. Again, if Kiezers insists on including it, I am going to have to insist on including info about the explosive growth of white people, and how Atlanta's Hispanic and Asian populations grew from virtually nothing in 1990 to make up 10% of the population 20 years later.

If Atlanta was 80%, 70%, or even 60% black, I would see his point. But it's only 54% black, which is around the same percentage as Philadelphia and Washington. Excluding from the lead the whopping 46% of the city that is non-black, and the fastest-growing segment, is un-encyclopedic.

So, in my opinion, Kiezers has a choice: include everyone or leave out race altogether. His actions of highlighting only one group and leaving out everyone else is not done on any other major American city article, un-encyclopedic, inappropriate, sensationalist, and exclusionary. --Mmann1988 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be OK in the lead, as it summarizes well-sourced content in the article. Singling out one race for a mention in the lead does make a bit of sense for a city with the "highest ratio of blacks to total population of any US city except Detroit." But if someone wants to add a sentence to summarize content about how other races are doing there, that should be OK, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. Kiezers only wants black people mentioned, and its not fair to minorities like myself who live in Atlanta and are a part of the city, too. In addition, Atlanta does not have the "highest ratio of blacks to total population of any US city except Detroit." Detroit is over 80% African-American; Atlanta is 54%.--Mmann1988 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Has Kiezers been removing things that you wanted to put in the lead? I agree that if he's doing that, then it would be disingenuous to expect you to be nice about what he wants to add. But I haven't seen that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted to put in a general sentence regarding race and ethnicity that is similar to those found in the lead of every other major American city: "The city has a population from various ethnic and religious backgrounds and a large and growing international community." Kiezers promptly removed this. But this sentence follows the template set by Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, etc. Ethnicity specifics are inappropriate in a lead.--Mmann1988 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply asking to include a sentence about Atlanta being a unique center of black culture, power and wealth. Why is that so offensive? Anybody can include intro-worthy facts about other races, I'm just not aware of any others for Atlanta which define the city. Is there a consensus that you can't mention anything about one race in the intro without mentioning them all including ones that are 3 or 6%? So far I only hear one editor saying that. Is anyone else offended? Talking about Chicago or Seattle is not relevant here, there are a handful of cities in the US where the majority ethnic group is a defining attribute of the city's character- e.g. Miami, El Paso, San Antonio. Frankly it's weird that those cities overlook that characteristic in their intro. Again, many other cities in multiethnic countries do mention it without incident. Keizers (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Point 1: That type of detail doesn't belong in the lead. That's why Hispanicity is not mentioned in Miami's intro. The lead is supposed to be about THE CITY AS A WHOLE, not just one side of one aspect of it.

Point 2: If we include that sentence, others will have to be included to be fair to the other 46% of Atlanta, including the most noteworthy demographic trend: that Atlanta has the fastest-growing white population among major American cities. This trend, more than anything else, defines 2011 Atlanta, in everything from schools to politics to housing.

Point 3: I do not want to compromise Atlanta's good article status by an un-encyclopedic intro that includes too much detail or unfairly highlights only one aspect of the city's complex demographics. I suggest we leave specific races out of it altogether and instead pursue an inclusive, general sentence regarding demographics that's appropriate for a lead: "The city has a population from various ethnic and religious backgrounds and a growing international community."

Point 4: I suggest Kiezers go to his local library, find an encyclopedia, and see what he finds under "Atlanta"--he may actually learn something.

Point 5: Atlanta is in AMERICA. What other multi-ethnic countries do with their city pages is irrelevant.--Mmann1988 (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reversed the removal of the sentence again. Mmann1988, again you resort to personal attack to defend an anti-black-content crusade.

On your point 3, FYI, I live in a 100-year-old section of the city of Atlanta, not in the northern suburbs, I am a member of our local history committee and have authored dozens of new Wikipedia history articles about Atlanta. Reading my sources it's clear I am extremely familiar with the authoritative books on Atlanta history such as Franklin Garrett's.

On your point 5, you attack my examples simply because they come from outside the US borders. In the end, this all comes down to: you don't believe something about black people belongs in the intro - at best because it offends you as a Hispanic. You have not shown that one other person on Wikipedia thinks that highly relevant race-related information is inappropriate in an intro. Until you do, I believe you should stop acting like this page belongs to you, stop the systematic suppression of information about Atlanta's black heritage that I have documented that you do under my "anti-black bias" post above.

Final notes, stop changing the title of this post to something calling my content "malicious". And spell my handle right?!?

Reminder, all this drama is in order to exclude one sentence: Atlanta is often called a "Black Mecca" due to its role as a center of black culture, power and wealth". Look at my latest edit and you will see that it's short, to the point, and includes all ethnic groups including minorities like myself. Keizers (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored the status quo; Majoreditor and Loudog both agreed that should not be in the lead, which makes it three votes against including it versus one vote for including it (you). Majority wins, and it stays out.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not categorically against mentioning race in the lead. As the sources show, Atlanta as a center of black culture, in combination with the city's gentrification issues are probably a decently notable part of the story here. I'd say the lead probably merits one sentence about the city's race and race history. For a good example of this see the FA Providence, Rhode Island. Philadelphia also makes a mention of gentrification in the lead. I think Keizers first try additions are overkill on the issue and undue weight on the subject, but the subject merits inclusion if it can be suitably trimmed, toned done, and cleaned up.--Louiedog (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactlly. Mmann's approach of reverting ("restoring the status quo") does not lead to progress. Tune it up instead. You've got 72 hours to work on it together without him, since he got blocked for his 4th revert in 24 hours after being warned not to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Mmann, we're at the stage where it's agreed that something will be added to the page. It will be more helpful to revise what's been added than to do a blanket reversion. Each time you see an addition that isn't encyclopedic or otherwise up to wikipedia quality, revise, but keep as much of the edit as you can. Eventually a consensus version will emerge.--Louiedog (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Louiedog and Dicklyon. Majoreditor (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Black mecca

I have added back the black mecca sentence into the intro. I am inviting the other participants in the discussion (from the previous Discussion section) to provide actual editing input on this point, because at the moment it is just being completely reverted back by the other editor who has an opinion on this. Keizers (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. Utilize a footnote rather than a citation to support the term "Black Mecca" as a footnote allows for a more expansive treatment. (This shows as a "Footnote" rather than a "Citation" or "Refeence" and uses the wiki designation <ref group=note>).
2. You should also incorporate higher-quality sources such as academic publications as support, rather than relying only upon newspaper and magazines. A quick Google Scholar search of the term "Atlanta Black Mecca" yielded promising results [2]; publications such as the Journal of Urban Affairs, Urban Athropology, and Southeast Geographer have articles which use the term; there are also several books, such as "The Atlanta Paradox", "Affirmative action and black entrepreneurship", and "The closing door: Conservative policy and Black opportunity" which mention "Black Mecca" or variations of the term. You may wish to sift through some of these sources (best if you have JSTOR or similar access), select some of the most robust ones, and develop a note which shows that Atlanta is often considered and frequently refered to as a "black mecca", that is, a cultural, economic, and artisitic center for African-Americans... or something like that. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the suggestion. I tried accessing a couple and it seems you need special access (I guess that is what JSTOR is?). I don't know how far I'll need to go to justify such an obvious fact. I have to laugh though (nothing against your suggestion, Majoredito) but it is ironically a little like the literacy tests that were applied here in the South for nearly 100 years... if you want to prove a "certain" point you need to go to all lengths... a dozen major newspapers and magazines are not sufficient. However if you want to say that Atlanta is famous for its rolling hills or pretty trees, one citation from a chamber of commerce brochure will do. Keizers (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreaciate the work Keizers is doing, but specific and intense sentences regarding one racial group does not belong in the lead. I think Keizers work should be added to the demographics section, or even Demographics of Atlanta. I added a sentence that summarizes the demographic section in one sentence, since that is the primary purpose of the lead. Keizers addition was completely overkill, and terming the city a black mecca is a POV that doesn't belong in the lead, especially the first sentence.--Mmann1988 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I put back the term "black mecca" — to change it to "historically significant black population" as was done in the last edit is to downplay the importance of the black population in Atlanta's identity and vice versa. The term black mecca shows that Atlanta can arguably be regarded as the most important center of black wealth, political power, culture, and history in the United States. That status is also inextricable from the identity of the city in which we live. To not include it in the intro is to not describe Atlanta in the intro. The extensive references are kept to show that point in case new people come into this discussion and are not aware of the references. They do not make the readable text longer. They can be removed when this section is no longer in dispute.Keizers (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mecca refers to the Islamic holy city, so using the term outside of the religious context is itself unecyclopedic. Ditch the persecution complex. I would also think many editors over at Detroit, Washington, Chicago, NYC, etc. would all disagree with your assertions, so lets just not open that can of worms by using such a loaded term and opinionated statement.--Mmann1988 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

M, thanks for talking about it here, and letting us know that you have an issue with the term "mecca". But it seems that we have a consensus here that such a phrase, mentioned in so many sources to characterize Atlanta, is worth a mention in the lead. I'll help you keep a balance on the amount of info in the lead, but you can't just keep taking it out because you don't like it. Let us know what you'd do next to improve the weight and balance, or just go ahead and do it, as long as it's sensible and doesn't remove "black mecca". As I warned you on your talk page, more reverting of the addition of this info to the lead will get you blocked again, probably for longer. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other editors before we deem this a consensus. Mecca is a very loaded term and does not belong in a lead. Just because you and another editor think it does is irrelevant. Also, please do not threaten me with probabilities. You are blocking our ability towards working towards consensus on the lead as we agreed to do.--Mmann1988 (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed mecca again as that is completely unecyclopedic and does no belong in an article that is aspiring FA status. I also think "center of black political power, education, wealth" can be summed up as a center of black culture, which is synonymic with "culturally important."--Mmann1988 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you did. See my 3RR violation report: [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the exact details of the dispute, but there does seem to be a large amount of citation overkill, likely as a result of the dispute. More sources aren't always better by default. 15 references for one statement is not "well sourced", it's a nightmare, and perhaps symptomatic of the fact that there is actually an issue with the content in the article. I think cleaning up that section and using only two or three of the strongest and most reliable sources would be the best thing to do. - SudoGhost 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I took the citations out the lead, leaving the long string of refs in the body; clearly it could do with many fewer, but the editor was trying this as a way to address Mmann's objections. Didn't work too good for anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

AS A MUSLIM, USING MAKKAH OUTSIDE OF AN ISLAMIC CONTEXT IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS OUR HOLY CITY AND TO DILUTE ITS SANCTITY IN THIS WAY IS INTOLERABLE AND RACIST!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodewayInn (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The above comment by "Rodeway Inn" is by a sock puppet. Disgusting that someone would resort to this. Keizers (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Keizers: If you believe RodewayInn is a sock puppet, file the appropriate investigation, but do not throw around unsupported accusations like that.

@RodewayInn: While I respect your religious views, they cannot change the fact that the word mecca has entered into common English usage to mean a place regarded as a center for a specified group, activity, or interest.[4] I'm sorry if this usage offends your sensibilities, but your sensibilities do not define the English language. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"International community"

I would like to suggest that we please not use the term "international community" when talking about Hispanics and Asians. I am actually "international" — and white (European American). And if I speak about the international community I mean something completely different again — all foreigners living in Atlanta (including Europeans) many of whom are not even permanent residents, many are here to study or work. Also it is not proved that the Hispanic and Asian populations consist of immigrants as opposed to native-born Americans. Unless so proved it should not be assumed that that is the case. Therefore, let's just call Hispanics and Asians by their name and not call them immigrants (unless proven) or "international". This kind of goes into the same category as "urban" being used to mean black. I also don't mean to imply that anyone was trying to be offensive with the term, I hope to promote genuinely clear language with this suggestion. Keizers (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead consensus

Dicklyon is blocking me from reaching consensus on the lead just because I think mecca doesn't belong. I am going to report him as best way I know possible (although reporting is not my forte) but I would like other editors to weigh in.--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with or objection to your use of "international" in the lead or elsewhere, as you suggested on my talk page. My reverts were only about your repeated (10 or more times) removal of "black Mecca" from the lead. I've invited comments in the RFC below. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppet RodewayInn

User RodewayInn (who removed references to "black mecca" ostensibly because it was offensive to him as a Muslim - is clearly a sock puppet, for the following reasons.

• User is too slick: The user is new and his first action was to make an edit at 0:09 GMT on 3 January, and then at 00:20 make an entry on the Atlanta Discussion page. Pretty good for a new user. In my experience, first-time users often clumsily make an edit, often with syntax errors, using their IP address, and do not participate in the discussion, we are lucky if they include an edit description.
• Timing: 00:20 was 4 minutes before another "anti-mecca" editor was active on the Atlanta "black mecca" issue. Are we to believe that this person came out of nowhere exactly at the time this issue is disputed?
• Though the user was new, 1.5 hours later (1:51 GMT on 3 Jan) he knew to assign himself a username and to enter text (he entered a single symbol, a right parenthesis) on his empty user page in order that his sockpuppet username not show up in red on the Atlanta Discussion pages. Knowing to enter any character on his empty user page is a trick that only experienced Wikipedians know.
• The person who wrote the fake comments was not a Muslim:
  • "Racist" Anyone who knows much about Islam knows that it is a religion which is very determined to unite different races (Middle Eastern white, African black, Indonesian, etc.). Muslims do not think in terms of race, they think in terms of religion, Islam. Muslims do not decry anti-Muslim bias as "racism" since it has nothing to do with race but purely religion.
  • Mecca - Use of the term "mecca" in the generic sense is generally not offensive to Muslims, unlike disrespectful uses of the name of Mohammed or Allah.

I encourage as many people as possible to be involved with this page, in order to fight racism in editing, as well as sick deceptive practices such as sock puppets.Keizers (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, literally the MINUTE I informed the other editor that I was aware of his sock puppet, he got active. Now, as I speak, user "RodewayInn" is busy making multiple minor edits to pages having to do with Islam. Presumably this is so that people will see a list of edits, not look at the timestamps, and think he is a real contributor to Wikipedia, not a sock puppet.Keizers (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating comments from above to include them in the proper dialog:

@Keizers: If you believe RodewayInn is a sock puppet, file the appropriate investigation, but do not throw around unsupported accusations like that.

@RodewayInn: While I respect your religious views, they cannot change the fact that the word mecca has entered into common English usage to mean a place regarded as a center for a specified group, activity, or interest.[5] I'm sorry if this usage offends your sensibilities, but your sensibilities do not define the English language. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The CheckUser has confirmed that RodewayInn is likely the same as Mmann1988. That should be enough for a long block, given the situation. Comment at the 3RR filing or making a new report at WP:ANI if you need to. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a ludicrous accusation, and I cannot believe Keizers is allowed to slander my good name by accusing me of sock puppeting without conducting the proper investigation. He is targeting me because I am Hispanic.--Mmann1988 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that this talk page is not the proper place for a sockpuppet investigation. The proper place is here, where a checkuser clerk has confirmed a likelihood that Mmann1988 (talk · contribs) and Keizers (talk · contribs)RodewayInn (talk · contribs) are the same. Further discussion of that issue should be relegated to the SPI page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiDan, you mean a likelihood that RodewayInn and Mmann1988 are the same. Keizers (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that. My mistake! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments go here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mmann1988. Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Atlanta is international" - meaningless statement

I have now again removed unsourced assertions that Atlanta is "international". Atlanta's foreign born population is only 8%, far less than the US average of 12% and far, far less than cities like Miami and LA which have 40-60% foreign born. Yes, Atlanta has the headquarters of international corporations, and the metro area is probably average as far as foreign born population goes. And the city may well be more international (foreign born) than ever in history. But the city of Atlanta is not a particularly "international" city. Any use of that term really needs to be sourced and have some meaning.Keizers (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the statement should be sourced instead of simply removed? We need to be careful about substituting our own opinion in place of reality.--Ganway (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I did find this book that could be a source: Atlanta Rising: The Invention of an International City 1946-1996. If a statement in a Wikipedia article is also used as the title of a published book, I would consider it a sourced assertion...--Ganway (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, "Ganway"? Then why don't you add the statement and source it. See if there is a source that you can attribute that would make the statement "international" meaningful. I think you can do that with regard to Atlanta's position as a HQ for international businesses, for its airport, etc. You probably *could* prove that there has been substantial growth in the foreign born population too. But to assert that "Atlanta has an international population" - I really think it cannot be done. BTW, can you share with me why you think it is my "opinion" that Atlanta is 8% foreign-born which is far less than the 12% national average? How is that my "opinion"? Keizers (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not an auto-confirmed editor and cannot edit it. I am unsure if it can be asserted that Atlanta has an international population, but I don't think your opinion that 8% foreign-born is not enough to make a city international should be substituted for reality if, in fact, "international" can be used to describe Atlanta.--Ganway (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What references would support an assertion that Atlanta has a (significant) "international population"? Can you provide one? Keizers (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many; a Google search yielded quite a few. Why does it have to be "significant"? An international population is an international population, and, if properly sourced, would be noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. I think we should try to be as open-minded as possible and not let our own opinions and subjective experiences color the article.--Ganway (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

An international population would have to be significant in order to make it worth mentioning. And I still haven't seen one solitary reference that says Atlanta has a relative, or significant, international population. I asked if you could provide one and I think it eludes you as it has me.Keizers (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to assume that another new editor showing up to take the side of blocked Mmann1988 is just another sock. Just ignore him: Ganway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, oops, I made one last edit before I saw your advice. Alright, I will follow your advice for a while. Keizers (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Images in the article

I have added some images and removed others. Here is why:

Removed:

• at Topography - This was a pic of the downtown/midtown skyline with tree canopy. Main reason to remove, the picture looks like terrible smog, but in fact I think the image itself is discolored. Also, we already had 7 pics of the Midtown skyline, and we already have one other picture showing the tree canopy.
• at climate - this is a dark, not very good pic of the Midtown skyline with snow in Piedmont Park in foreground. Like I said, we had 7 pics of the Midtown skyline so removing this brings us down to 5. It actually doesn't fit in the climate section because the climate box is so long it is the length of the entire text in the section (and you can't float a pic on the right when there is something else floating left. So we can show what snow in Atlanta looks like by moving the very good pic x up from the architecture section into the parks section.
• Pic of North Avenue Presbyterian Church. We already have a pic of one church (cathedral) and the North Avenue church is not architecturally remarkable, so it doesn't add much to the article.

Moved:

• x up from the architecture section to climate as mentioned previously

About neighborhoods The neighborhoods section needs to illustrate areas outside of downtown/Midtown/Buckhead skyline. The bulk of our neighborhoods fall into categories like: Victorian areas, bungalow areas, Buckhead/Morningside mansions & ranch houses, and then the new mixed-income communities that replaced the projects.

So for that reason I also removed

• ' at Neighborhoods. removed because 1) the neighborhoods section needs to illustrate areas outside of downtown/Midtown/Buckhead skyline. 2) This pic was just not that great, showed the wedge end of the Candler Building and some trees in Woodruff Park, nothing really spectacular. Didn't really "say" anything about Downtown.
• - doesn't really show much about the neighborhood architecture, just the bricks at the center of Buckhead Triangle Park.

and I added:

• at Neighborhoods - bungalows in Inman Park, a much better illustration of typical Atlanta "Neighborhoods".

Under Architecture I changed the kind of random picture from a Midtown building, to a gallery with a sample of buildings - a couple of landmark skyscapers and a couple of varieties of architectural styles. Keizers (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewording?

I feel like the sentence in the lede, "The city has long been known as a "black mecca": a center of black wealth, political power and culture..." followed immediately by "However, the city's white population is growing rapidly..." sounds a little racist to me. I can't help but feel like the way these sentences are paired that it could be construed as something along the lines of "Atlanta is a black mecca however whites are moving into the city." possibly insinuating that the larger number of whites will somehow lead to the downfall of the "black mecca" persona. =/ Am I alone in feeling that this could or should be reworded somehow? Is this even something that we need to establish in the lede? (not the black mecca part, but the increasing white population bit) Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, I was just reading the conversations above. I rescinded my opinion (though I still agree with it, I'd rather not get into an argument) But here's my two cents: Black Mecco should /not/ be in the lede and neither should the white population increase. 54% is /not/ enough to warrant mention in the lede. >_< Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Richs pink pig.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Richs pink pig.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Richs pink pig.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

According to WikiProject Cities Guideline - Geography, Cityscape and all the subsections beneath it, is actually part of the Geography of the city. I really think we should merge the subsections into Geography. Also, Surrounding municipalities should be moved up there, as well. Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

sounds good Keizers (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright! I'll get to that, also I've been re-arranging and merging some sections. I've not really done much to change the actual content though. I aligned some pictures. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames: The ATL vs. ATL

208.253.23.130 changed the nickname "The ATL" to "ATL" saying it was more common. I added sources to show common use of the term "The ATL". I am aware of "ATL" as an airport code, but cannot find evidence of that as a nickname. (I live in Atlanta and do not also come across that usage, i.e. you hear "do you live in the A-T-L?" but not "do you live in A-T-L"?) I did leave in "ATL" as an additional nickname, but keep in mind it is unsourced. We need to concentrate on what is sourced here as opposed to opinion.

• Sorry if I appeared to "own" the article as I contribute so much to it, I don't feel that way, my reverts are based on what I am able to find out as fact.
• It would be useful if 208.253.23.130 would log in with a username

Keizers (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am the same person who changed it last night. Forgot to sign in b/c im on public computer. I grew up in the city and never hear "the" placed before "ATL." The city's media doesn't either:

• http://www.ajc.com/sports/atls-record-154-seasons-1331879.html
• http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2012/01/27/pastornicky-simmons-at-forefront-of-atl-shortstop-depth/
• http://www.ajc.com/news/choice-for-atl-police-537804.html
• Creative Loafing does "Best of ATL", not "Best of the ATL":
• http://clatl.com/atlanta/Search?cx=002407891961455841536%3Aeipla0hprou&cof=FORID%3A9&q=best+of+atl

"ATL" is similar to "NYC" or "LA". No one ever says "The NYC".

I didnt meant to accuse you or anything, it just seemed rather petty and i was surprised somebody would revert such a minor edit. Cheers! :) ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.23.130 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

208.253.23.130, your examples do remind me of how "ATL" is used, as a sort of shorthand. However, times have definitely changed since you grew up here and "The ATL" is definitely a nickname that is common. It started out as "urban" and nowadays "non-urban" Atlantans might well use it with a wink. So I think we are right mentioning both as nicknames. BTW, I would guess you also don't recognize "the A" as a nickname. That's even more recent and even more urban. I would say urban-only. Keizers (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know ATL only came about recently (as in, since millennium). I only moved away from ATL in 2007 to go to college, and I am about to mvoe back there and still friends with people who are from there or stay there. I just dont see "ATL" as distinct from "the ATL", as in, I dont think "the" is a crucial part of the nickname that sets it apart from just "ATL"; in other words, ATL includes "the ATL". Does that make sense? Also Im African American so I am familiar with "The A"--for that nickname, "the" is deinitely included--you will never hear anybody say "Are you going to A for the weekend?" Just my two cents :) ;) -Ustmusichall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.23.130 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha; for me, "the ATL" sounds very different from "ATL", the very fact that you can say "the" kind of makes it distinct. You can't say "the N-Y-C" or "the L-A-X" but you *can* say both "ATL" *and* "the A-T-L" (examples. So for that reason I would like to keep them both there as they are, if you don't mind too much.Keizers (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cityscape

I think that the 3 images of the skyline is too many and we should probably pick one. Also, we could probably remove some of the skyscraper pictures (the whole article is littered with them, I say keep the 2 or 3 that are the best examples. (I prefer the Candler Building over the others). Any suggestions? Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to pare them down... I wanted to but was averse to offending anybody who might be "into" skylines. My only gripe is that it would be nice to show Downtown, Midtown and Buckhead skylines. I am pretty sure there is not a nice one of Buckhead... there is one that looks smoggy and a lot is still under construction, so it's out of date. Not sure about Downtown. One thing, the pictures are not aligning very nicely. You know there is a trick to leave a blank line after every one, that helps the alignment a lot and also prevents these strange single lines that jut out all the way to the edge, between pictures. Another point, you used the term " Examples of Atlanta architecture" - I prefer simply "Atlanta architecture" - I think " Examples of" is not really necessary. Finally, but that's just a matter of taste, I prefer to have one picture left then a little further down, one on the right and so on, rather than "bars" of solid pictures on both sides. But again, that might just be my opinion, it's not like there's a rule. Keizers (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like the bars much either, aside from the occasional double-picture however, I couldn't think of how else to move them out of the gallery without having them all over the place. I moved the skylines around so they weren't all in one big block of pictures and I think it worked out fairly well. let me know what you think about that. I also removed a couple of the images, I prefer to have them staggered like you said, but I'm not sure if it looks alright. Take a look and see if you would suggest any other changes. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! I think it's good to continue to pare down where possible. And the placement looks good.Keizers (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC of "Black Mecca"

There is a long-running edit war here over the inclusion of the term "Black Mecca" in the lead of Atlanta. I tried to help, but am giving up for now. Please review sections above and suggest a resolution. It might be helpful if present disputants would hold off until after we get some independent comments. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I was trying not to edit the article, but things have taken a really disturbing turn. An editor who objects to the term "black mecca" has created a sock puppet, RodewayInn, and removed all references to "black mecca", even in the body of the article. I made an edit ONLY to put that content back in. We need HELP here from you guys and we need a LOT of eyes on this article and what this one editor is doing. Keizers (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

- - - Comment below is from a sockpuppet of a user impersonating a Muslim - - -

AS A MUSLIM, USING MAKKAH OUTSIDE OF AN ISLAMIC CONTEXT IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS OUR HOLY CITY AND TO DILUTE ITS SANCTITY IN THIS WAY IS INTOLERABLE AND RACIST!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodewayInn (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

While the article currently has no lack of sources for that term, it seems to be a "quantity over quality" situation, and while it may warrant a brief mention in the article, I don't see any evidence of the term being prevalent enough to warrant inclusion in the lede of the article. - SudoGhost 04:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the idea be conveyed with more neutral phrasing? I'm not Muslim, but I have to admit that phrasing seems rather culturally insensitive. One suggestion off the top of my head is "black haven", but I'm sure there are a myriad of ways to say the same thing. LadyofShalott 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually we prefer to stick with what's in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For information, yes... but why is that exact phrasing needed? LadyofShalott 17:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a quote from the numerous sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And that quote above is from a proved sock puppet who was *impersonating* a Muslim. So far *no* Muslim person has said that the term "mecca" is insensitive.Keizers (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SudoGhost and LadyofShalott - I think we should include the basic idea, but use more neutral phrasing in the lede. I don't have a problem with having it in the article body, but if we do choose to include it there I think we should attribute it to its (multiple) sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Working out the exact phrasing could be tricky, but I'm sure it can be done while still keeping the main thrust of the section. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what exactly is the problem with "mecca". So far I se LadyofShalott say that it's "culturally insensitive" - but I would ask if she still thinks so considering that the one and only one person that complained about that was a sockpuppet of a person impersonating a Muslim - a grossly offensive, disrespectful act that just makes my jaw drop. "Mecca" as a generic term is commonly used in English. Even the New Georgia Encyclopedia uses the term in the intro to the History section of its "Atlanta" article. If someone is genuinely offended, I see a reason to change it, but so far I am wondering if everyone is just "assuming" that the word "mecca" is offensive... or even "non-neutral".Keizers (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that using a sockpuppet for impersonation is disruptive, and I wasn't basing my comments on theirs. (Not that I checked the SPI report - I just tend to place lesser importance on posts written in all-caps.) I regard "Mecca" as somewhat of a loaded term due to its origins as a metaphor for the Islamic holy city. I realise that it can be used as a purely descriptive term in English these days, but I think that a significant number of people will still treat it as a metaphor, and if it is treated as a metaphor it is problematic. Mecca is, of course, the holiest city in Islam, and Muslims are bound by their faith to visit it at least once in their lifetime. Atlanta, on the other hand, may not be the most important city for blacks, and "black" is not a religion. In my opinion, the insensitivity arises through the implicit assertion that Atlanta is as important to blacks as Mecca is to Muslims, which downplays the value that Muslims put in their faith and in the Hajj. Having said that, I agree that the coverage the phrase has in sources about Atlanta warrants mentioning it in the article body. I merely think that as the term could be seen as insensitive, we should hedge our bets and attribute it to its sources. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 07:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence now reads "Atlanta has long been known as a black mecca" - perhaps if it stated "Atlanta has long been called" or "referred to" "as a black mecca" that would address the potential issue i.e. make it clear that this is about what is *stated* by the numerous popular sources. The point is indeed that it is referred to as such. I would never expect Wikipedia to state that something "is" a mecca. BTW the potential issue is still theoretical - a Muslim scholar uses it freely in slightly different context: http://www.temple.edu/religion/abdullah/index.html. Also BTW, you state that English uses the term "mecca" generically *nowadays*, in fact regarding Atlanta the sources in the article date back to the 1960s, and here is a book from 1850 using the term "mecca" generically.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizers (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be pointing out what the sources say about it, and that we shouldn't just say that Atlanta is a black mecca. I think that you misunderstand my intention - I'm not suggesting that we "water down" the wording at all - rather, I think that properly attributing the term will make the wording stronger. How about this version: 'Atlanta was renowned as a center of black wealth, political power, education, and culture, including film and music; its reputation was such that it has been described as a "black mecca" by various academics, magazines, newspapers including the New York Times and Washington Post, and the New Georgia Encyclopedia.' I think that rather than just saying that Atlanta was regarded as a "black mecca" by some unspecified people, which I regard as both vague and still in Wikipedia's voice, listing the specific sources that have described Atlanta as such both makes the statement more factual and gives it more clout. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good - slightly expanded from that, it could even be a paragraph on its own somewhere down in the body of the article, in a new section about local culture or about the ethnic communities. However, how would one summarize that in an intro section - I think it's important enough to include, but your suggested wording would be too long for the introKeizers (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would deal with it by just removing "black mecca" from the lede - in my opinion, the sentence would not lose anything by leaving it out. We would be left with "The city has long been known as a center of black wealth, political power and culture; it is a cradle of the Civil Rights Movement and home to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." (I've also tidied this up ever so slightly.) This is just my opinion - others may be able to think of better ways. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Black Mecca. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole "culturally sensitive" thing is distracting us from what should be an uncontroversial cosmetic change. "X is the Y Mecca" might be a common English idiom but it's overly colloquial and promotional for an encyclopaedia article. We should remove it because WP:Use plain English and this:

The city has long been known as a "black mecca": a center of black wealth, political power and culture; a cradle of the Civil Rights Movement and home to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Means exactly the same thing as this:

The city has long been known as a center of black wealth, political power and culture: a cradle of the Civil Rights Movement and home to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We've no obligation to use a particular wording just because it's used in sources. joe•roe^t•c 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

True there's no obligation, but that's if you're *only* describing its role as a center of wealth (Etc.). I would argue that the phrase itself, as used by many people and in many sources, is worth referring to in and of itself. In other words, that it's notable that it's called a "black mecca", in addition to the fact that it's a center of wealth (etc.) Anyway, no one else is chiming in that using the phrase "black mecca" in the lead is important, so I'm changing it to "center". I'll deal with it in the body of the article Keizers (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the outdated controversies of how to represent Atlanta as a "Black Mecca", went hand-in-hand with how to represent So So Def Recordings, or Atlanta as one of the new "Mo-towns" Ncsr11 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:SnowMidtownAtlanta.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SnowMidtownAtlanta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SnowMidtownAtlanta.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Balance and the "Social Other"

It is one thing to note Atlanta's historical black history; it's another to make almost no mention of the city's white history as well. While there is a separate article on the history of Atlanta, just a "Atlanta quickly rebounded and prospered" after being burnt to the ground in 1864 doesn't cut it. No mention of Henry Grady, Uncle Remus, the Phoenix symbol (rising from the ashes), or the spectacular growth after the war? No mention of the city emerging as a center of Southern business, skyscrapers, or GA Tech?

OK, I added a few of those things. Like a "bio-graphy," or "life-graph," the history of a city is not just important outliers but how the city grew organically.Ryoung122 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, see WP:SS. Along that principle, I am a big supporter of making great sub-articles, then making leads for them, then porting over that lead to the main article. So originally (for example [6]) I added a LOT of information to the History of Atlanta article and did a three-paragraph lead section for that article, which I then copied over and used as the History section of the main Atlanta article. Ncboy had a go at editing the History section of Atlanta, and, while he has made numerous improvements to the article, I have to agree that the history section wound up a bit meager after his edit, as Ryoung points out. It would be nice if the intro of History of Atlanta was improved (if required) and that same text was copied over and used as the History section of Atlanta, rather than recreating something separate. That would help us get back on track with WP:SS Keizers (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, my edits were a (admittedly failed) attempt to make the section a bit more concise in the context of this article because it's currently a bit on the long side. Although I have no qualms about expanding the history, for the Atlanta article to remain readable, we have to keep an eye on the article as a whole. As editors, we sometimes overlook that focusing on improvements to a section. A section can always get expanded. The problem lies when you expand history, John expands the cityscape section while Jane is expanding the climate section. Individually, all their edits are probably good improvements but together make the article as a whole harder to read. The main article should hit on the most important points while trying at every possible point to stay in a state that would be easy to read from top to bottom by someone who knows nothing about the city. That's just my opinion. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we cut back on some of the modern-day "boosterism" and avoid the problem of "recentism". To me, the history of a city is like the history of a person: how did they grow from a small child to someone important/famous? Why did Atlanta grow to become the capital city and not stay at Milledgeville? While the key to Atlanta development has been location (where the Atlantic watershed meets the Gulf watershed) and transportation (first four major railroads, later three major interstates and the world's busiest airport), the contribution of major civic leaders (such as Henry Grady, William B. Hartsfield, etc) and private corporations and citizens (Asa Candler and Robert W Woodruff of Coca-Cola) should be sketched. It should also be mentioned how Atlanta grew from a burned-out shell in 1864 to reach the 24th-largest city in America status by 1960. Finally, we need something about the arts and culture (mentioning the Fox Theatre and historic preservation, for example). Thanks.Ryoung122 15:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in historical population box

The 2010 population is for the combined statistical area (CSA), not the metropolitan statistical area (MSA). All of the previous data is for the MSA and the 2010 data should be changed to reflect the MSA population (5,729,304) to be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.161.1 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Snow photos of Atlanta

To the point about adding a photograph of snow in Atlanta, I completely disagree with the addition of ANY snow photograph and I'll tell you why: Atlanta has an average of 1.9 days of snow per year, 113.3 days of Rain per year and that leaves 250.05 days of sunshine in an average year of 365.25 days. Adding a picture of snowy Atlanta may be pretty, yes, but it adds huge undue weight to snow in Atlanta. Wikipedia should be as representative as possible of reality. There are currently 30 photos of buildings and other outside (modern) scenes of Atlanta in sunshine, adding just 1 photo of snow would give a 521.1% over-representation of snow in Atlanta. It would be much more accurate to add pictures of rain in Atlanta (Just saying.)

To reiterate: Atlanta is a southern city, it gets snow on average of (not quite) 2 days per year. It's grossly inaccurate to put a picture of snow on here. Apparently this is a problem that's rampant in Wikipedia. Fairbanks, Alaska one of the coldest cities in the United States (with a high temperature around 70 degrees) uses a picture of flowers and a river as the "Main" photograph despite the average high being lower than 60 for 8 months of the year. Regardless, you see and understand what I mean, it's grossly inaccurate for these kinds of images to be used out of place and usually by people in cities that rarely experience them. That's why so many people want snow pictures of Atlanta and people in Fairbanks have decided that a picture of flowers in the summer is a "good picture" for their city. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree, I'll tell you why. What is typical or stereotypical is not always the situation, and the reader should be familiar with that. The city of Atlanta always experiences temperatures as low as 20F, every winter, for 130+ years. Winters in Atlanta are mild, yet it would be a misconception to suggest they do not happen. Showing "one" alternative scenario is not overdoing it. And even if the photo were "snow in Miami," that would have been an historical event, so the percent of time that it occurs is not relevant. That is sometimes occurs is.Ryoung122 15:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree on one point: Historically significant occurrences do warrant mention but your argument to include an image of snow in Atlanta on that basis is invalid: It is neither common enough, nor rare enough to warrant an image in this article. The article is large enough as it is. Please feel free to add the image to Climate and Environment of Atlanta. A city's temperature has nothing to do with occurrence of snow so your "20F winters for 130+ years" argument is also invalid. Your only argument left is that the reader should be familiar that snow is possible in Atlanta. I'll quote the article directly here:

Annual snowfall averages 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) annually. The heaviest single storm brought around 16 inches on March 12–14, 1993 during The Storm of the Century. True blizzards are rare but possible; one hit in March 1993. Ice storms usually cause more trouble than does snowfall; the most severe such storms may have occurred on January 7, 1973 and January 9, 2011.

So therefore, you have absolutely no argument for the inclusion of this image aside from your stated: Snow isn't typical, the reader should know about the snow, Atlanta gets cold every winter and has for 130 years, it's a misconception to suggest no snow (No one suggested that, see the above quote from the article), Snow is a historical event in Atlanta (it's not).

All arguments above aside, there is already an image of snow in Piedmont park. Snow is mentioned in the article (almost a whole paragraph, really) and is shown in the climate data table. We don't need the picture you were trying to add to it. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A photo of snow in Atlanta should be in the Climate section of Geography of Atlanta, not on this article. Although there is freezing weather every year in Atlanta, snow is rare and a pic of Atlanta covered in snow gives the impression that Atlanta is a snowy city. Jim Michael (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Article overhaul discussion

Center of black culture, wealth and political power: Mmann1988, some of the changes you have made are contrary to the consensus that was reached after the "warring" period, specifically those related to race in the lead section. A consensus was reached after *much* discussion on the topic and it was concluded that the lead should contain information about Atlanta's status as a center of black culture, wealth and political power — what some call a "mecca". We are not going to throw out that consensus which took a long time to reach simply because you would compare Atlanta to Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia - that is a personal point of view as compared to the dozens of reliable sources which refer to Atlanta - uniquely along with Harlem — as a black mecca. Atlanta is different because not only is there a black mayor and black political power, but also it is the home of the largest concentration of historically black colleges, which has produced a black business elite and "high society" (if you will). Add to this that Atlanta is the center of hip-hop music and black film, and it's plain to see that Atlanta is quite unique. I really don't think that, considering what happened with the warring and banning, that we are in a position to open this discussion again because you personally do not agree with the consensus.

Thanks very much for the contributions and suggestions. I have read over the discussions, and I do not see any consensus reached that demographic information must be included in the lede. The only consensus I see was regarding the usage of the term "black mecca." The purpose of the comparisons to DC, Philly, and Baltimore was to show that, statistically and factually, Atlanta is not unique among major eastern cities in terms of its demographics. Stating that you think Atlanta is unique because its historically black colleges (DC has them) and black wealth (Philly has a huge black upper class) make it comparable to Harlem is purely opinion. Whether it is your opinion, or the opinion of Ebony magazine, is irrelevant. All of these statements are opinion and thus violate WP:POV.

In my opinion, what makes Atlanta unique is its progressive race relations, which has created an environment where *everyone* can thrive. The theme is inclusiveness; a city that does not see skin color. Wealth is wealth in Atlanta; it doesn't have to be *black* wealth. In Atlanta, a person who went to college is simply an educated individual, not and educated *black* individual. As a minority myself, I think its wonderful that in Atlanta, people are judged by the content of their character, not their skin color. But just like your view of race in Atlanta, mine is only an opinion and therefore must be omitted under Wikipedia guidelines.

To accompany my edits and engage in this civil debate, I have conducted a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the third paragraph of the lede to explain my rationale, in order that we may reach an agreement.

"The city has long been known as a center of black wealth, political power and culture..."

Atlanta has too many demographic trends for them to all be mentioned in the lede. This kind of detail is much too specific and minute for the lede, and, as previously mentioned, no consensus was reached as to whether demographic information should be in the lede at all.

"a cradle of the Civil Rights Movement and home to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr...."

The Civil Rights movement, similar to the Civil War and the 1996 Olympics, were a watershed event in the history of Atlanta. However, the Civil Rights movement is history, so I included it in the portion of the lede that summarizes the history of Atlanta. I am very happy with the end result, as it recognizes that without Atlanta's peacefulness, it would have never become the city that it is today.

"However, the city's white population is growing rapidly..."

Again, this is another demographic trend. Atlanta has too many demographic trends for them to all be mentioned in the lede. This kind of detail is much too specific and minute for the lede, and, as previously mentioned, no consensus was reached as to whether demographic information should be in the lede at all.

"while Metro Atlanta has quickly become ethnically diverse with large Hispanic and Asian populations..."

Demographic information about metro Atlanta should not be in the article at all, let alone in the lede. Even if this was about Atlanta, and not metro Atlanta, this kind of detail is much too specific and minute for the lede, and, as previously mentioned, no consensus was reached as to whether demographic information should be in the lede at all.

"The arts and entertainment are well represented in Atlanta..."

I re-worded this sentence, as it was very awkward-sounding. Entertainment cannot be represented in the same sense that art can be represented by robust institutions.

"the city is an important base for hip hop, gospel, and neo soul music.

As this Creative Loafing article states (http://clatl.com/atlanta/damn-hipsters-is-atlanta-falling-prey-to-its-indie-cachet/Content?oid=1278176), "Other cities have had cohesive music scenes shape a large part of their identity. Just up Ga. 316, Athens was the fertile crescent of American college rock in the late '70s and early '80s. Seattle had grunge in the '90s. For most of the 2000s, Omaha, Neb., of all places, became an indie-rock mecca. But Atlanta seems to lack the sense of cohesion around which a defining scene can be built." Thus, hip hop, gospel, and soul join rock, electronica, and country to form the hodge-podge that is Atlanta music. No genre is dominant, so to be accurate, it is best to leave out music out of the lede.

"in addition, it has become a major center of film and TV production..."

This is an aspect of the city's economy, and I did consider adding it to the lede section that deals with the economy. However, even though it is growing, film and television production takes up an incredibly small portion of Atlanta's economy. As the Guideline suggests, only Primary industries supporting a city's economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc ...) should be included.

"Atlanta stands out among major U.S. cities for its dense tree coverage..."

I agree with the edit. I also added two other geographical features.

"In 1996, Atlanta hosted the Summer Olympics, an event that spurred a wave of gentrification that has intensified into the 21st century, revitalizing the city's center and in-town neighborhoods."

I edited this to make it more accurate. Gentrification is but one aspect of the revitalization of Atlanta, not the other way around. For example, the BeltLine is not gentrification, but it is revitalization. Also, it is important to note what effects revitalization has had on Atlanta's landscape: a higher density and income (demographics), shaken up the mayoral race (politics), and led to more demands for park space (culture).

"Tree canopy': Compared to that discussion, everything else is minor - however I put Tree Canopy under Geography - it is clearly a geographic feature, whether or not it is unique (it is certainly the highest percent of major cities, but I am not sure that makes it unique)

I made Tree Canopy its own section, even if it is a geographic feature. According to the guideline, topics specific to the city can have their own section at the end. It has nothing to do with uniqueness. With the highest tree coverage, the destruction of Atlanta's tree canopy is significant and specific to Atlanta. For example, the Louisville, Kentucky article has a section dealing with the city's nomenclature and pronunciation, since its name is often mispronounced. Also, FYI, I plan on making a massive expansion of the Tree Canopy sub-article, which would make the two paragraphs here an adequate summary (WP:SS).

Religion: I believe you accidentally removed that section — I reinstated it along with material about the local dialect.

No, it was intentional. As a religious person, it does sadden me to see how much religion has been scrubbed from the public sphere. Wikipedia is no exception, for not a single FA city included religion, and the Guideline did not include a religion section and offered no advice to where it could be included. Perhaps we can find a way to trim it down to city-only info and then work it into the demographics section?

Also, language and dialect were never removed, they were only moved to the demographics section, since language and dialect is a demographic topic. However, I made it a distinct and seperate paragraph to improve visibility.

Summary style: note that when the article was previously overhauled a few months ago, quite a number of new subarticles were created. We tried to follow the principles of writing a summary of the subarticle in the main article which is the principle of Summary Style (WP:SS) Keizers (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the heads up.

Keizers, I realize we have butted heads in the past, and for that, I sincerely apologize. My behavior was wrong. Please realize that I am a completely new person, and give me another chance to work with you in a civil manner. I will make sure that this time around, there will be NO edit warring on my part. This overhaul took a TON of work, and I am really looking forward to collaborating with you on the creation of a final product that all editors find accurate, appropriate, and encyclopedic!--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mmann. I just wanted to say a couple of things. First of all, I do commend your efforts to improve this article, and I believe that you didn't overstep WP:BOLD. But, in the same breath, an overhaul this large (on such a popular article) really should have been discussed first. I think that many of your edits were positive ones, without doing too much scrutiny (I only glanced through your edits and read the summary). Keizers and I have been on and off working with preventing vandalism on the page, and attempting to organize the layout and keep the article within a reasonable length while preserving factual accuracy and balancing due attention. I'll be more than happy to join any discussions about revisions to the article, just know that I follow consensus rather than argue points. Oftimes I've actually disagreed (heatedly) with consensus but you've got to go with it, you know?

Still, I believe that we can definitely improve the article, but we need to establish consensus for changes. It might be best to ignore the lede (for now) as this is a hot-button issue for all the editors here. (My personal opinion being that we should generalize a bit more). But as far as sourced, factual information within the article sections, we should be able to reach a consensus easily and quickly enough. Please feel free to create a new section describing what you think should be changed, how and why and then we'll discuss them. Any agreed-upon changes will be made, I promise. Keizers and I follow wikipolicy and consensus.

PS: General rule of thumb; if you want to edit an article, check the talk page and edit history to see how active the page is as far as editing; if it's fairly active (or has regular editors), it's best to discuss what you want to do first. If there's little/no editing (or only IP edits) you can leave a message on the talk page explaining what you plan to do and, if you get no protests, you can go ahead with the overhaul. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for joining the process and making helpful suggestions. I apologize for not using the correct process; I was under the incorrect assumption that as long as an overhaul is explained in the discussion, it can proceed. Sorry about that! The process you recommended (and, now that I look at other pages, seems to be the standard) sounds a lot more efficient and effective.

I also agree that we should reach consensus on other parts of the article and hold off on the lede (I also am of the aopinion that we should generalize as much as possible). I am really looking forward to reaching consensus in a civil way that follows Wikipolicy, and perhaps could even serve as a model for future revisions.

I think the main issues outside the lede section that consensus needs to be reached on is whether the Tree canopy is a specific enough topic to the city (according to the Guideline) to warrant its own section (I think it is, because having the highest tree coverage means your susceptible to losing it). The other issue would be Religion and, if it is included at all, where it should be located within the article (I think it shouldn't be, because no FA city has it and the Guideline omits it, but if we do decide to include it, its demographic info). A third issue would be whether Language and dialect is a demographic aspect or a cultural aspect (I think its demographic). I am anxious to hear what you think of these issues, and exited to reach consensus!

Thanks again for the help and advice, it is GREATLY appreciated!--Mmann1988 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia operates on the principle of establishing "consensus," not "warring". The following comment is disturbing:

"Mmann1988, some of the changes you have made are contrary to the consensus that was reached after the "warring" period,"

There is not an "edit war" to be "won." Neither can we say that consensus cannot change. Instead, if major changes are to be made and there is disagreement as to those changes, they should be discussed on the talk page first.Ryoung122 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision discussion

Thanks so much for joining the process and making helpful suggestions. I apologize for not using the correct process; I was under the incorrect assumption that as long as an overhaul is explained in the discussion, it can proceed. Sorry about that! The process you recommended (and, now that I look at other pages, seems to be the standard) sounds a lot more efficient and effective. ~Mmann1988

Yes, we should talk through things and reach a community consensus. - Ncboy2010

I also agree that we should reach consensus on other parts of the article and hold off on the lede (I also am of the aopinion that we should generalize as much as possible). I am really looking forward to reaching consensus in a civil way that follows Wikipolicy, and perhaps could even serve as a model for future revisions. ~Mmann1988

As stated earlier, I agree with avoiding too-detailed information in the lede paragraph, the lead section should be able to adequately stand alone as an accurate summary of the key points vital to the article, I'm not so sure about demographics but as I said, let's talk about the lead a bit later. - Ncboy2010

I think the main issues outside the lede section that consensus needs to be reached on is whether the Tree canopy is a specific enough topic to the city (according to the Guideline) to warrant its own section (I think it is, because having the highest tree coverage means your susceptible to losing it). The other issue would be Religion and, if it is included at all, where it should be located within the article (I think it shouldn't be, because no FA city has it and the Guideline omits it, but if we do decide to include it, its demographic info). A third issue would be whether Language and dialect is a demographic aspect or a cultural aspect (I think its demographic). I am anxious to hear what you think of these issues, and exited to reach consensus! ~Mmann1988

The Tree Canopy is both unique and a geographic feature of the city. Does it warrant it's own section? I'm of the opinion that it certainly has enough notability, and I'm assuming adequate sources, to exist as a separate section. Although I'm not personally fond of the appended city-specific sections, it is a part of the guidelines and manual of style. I just wonder if it may be better to have it under geography or city-scape?

I'd still like to see Keizer's opinion on this particular matter. - Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I don't have *that* strong of an opinion on the matter, but my opinion is: I have not seen enough evidence that the Tree Canopy is sufficiently unique - rather than just the fact that Atlanta has the highest percentage of tree coverage. Only a truly unique situation would warrant it standing out at the end of the article, rather than be identified as a geographical feature.

I agree with what you are saying: Atlanta having a tree canopy is not, in itself, unique. However, in my opinion, what is notable and unique is the situation Atlanta is facing: the city with the highest percentage of tree canopy is at risk of losing that ranking because of clear-cutting, greedy developers, the lack of environmental protections, and natural changes, such as drought. Thus, what is unique is that Atlanta not only has the highest tree coverage, but that it this tree coverage is being destroyed by the factors I have listed. I hope that makes sense; it's really the tree canopy + the threat to the tree canopy that makes the situation unique. --Mmann1988 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The points that I really want to make sure are not lost - from my point of view - are threefold:

1) that the Atlanta's living, breathing unique role in African American history and culture, and all the history events associated with that, not only be buried in the demographic section, but that this be apparent from reading the article

I don't think anyone is arguing against ignoring Atlanta's living, breathing role in African American history and culture. However, I think it is important that this history and culture be *integrated* into the article. In other words, the history section should not be segregated by race. A good example of *integration* in the history section would be the sentence that talks about the founding of Atlanta's colleges: "By 1885, the founding of the Georgia School of Technology (now Georgia Tech) and the city’s black colleges had established the city as a center for higher education." The sentence does not segregate between Georgia Tech and the AUC; rather, it treats each of their founding with equal importance. --Mmann1988 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2) that the history not revert to a style which glorifies events and does not present the struggles and downsides. Things were what they were - many glorious and beautiful things, and also much, much sadness for half the population punctuated by advances. An example is the extensive description of the GWTW premiere which completely overlooks that it was a whites-only event and one of the Oscar-winning stars was excluded because of her race. Not to mention that MLK Senior led a choir of black youth dressed as Aunt Jemimas and pickanninies and was heavily criticized. The siginificance of the events was the hundreds of thousands of people who lined the streets - but to glorify the event is really taking one side of the story only.

I completely agree with this. There should be no glorification, but we also don't want to be revisionist, as that brings its own controversies. I'm confident we can reach a good balance.--Mmann1988 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

3) that we not write in a "glowing" style like a tourist of chamber of commerce brochure, but rather write factually. This includes not using banal terms such as saying Atlanta's weather is "mild" (mild compared to where? and what about our scathing summers?). Not saying things are "unique" when Atlanta is simply #1 amongst other cities. No sentences such as "Atlanta's weather makes it ideal for..." ("ideal" is actually an exaggeration and not factual) Finally, we should not avoid the downsides to the city - the slums, the crime, the traffic. We are supposed to be writing the facts not painting a shining picture of the city, much as I do like the city.

Yes, any references to "ideal" and "mild weather" should be removed. I think traffic and pollution are pretty adequately covered in the transportation section. I also constructed (from scratch) a very comprehensive paragraph on Atlanta's economic struggles, which you can find at the end of the Economy section. The crime paragraph (under law and government) should really be expanded to detail how Atlanta is still among the most crime-ridden cities in the US, and that it was the murder capital of American from the 1970s to the 1990s. --Mmann1988 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta and black culture

Just a general remark about the racial issue, as someone who lives in Intown Atlanta, I do agree that "we are all Atlantans" and it would be wonderful if there were less self-identification based on race. But the reality is that those racially-specific elements are huge - Atlanta as a center of "black money", the "black upper class", black political power, and black cinema, music, and art. These elements form a major part of everyday life in the city and the basic perception of what the city's identity is (along with other major "identity factors", say, Buckhead wealth; transport hub; Coca-Cola/Delta/Turner; economic capital of the South; etc.) Aside from my personal perception as a resident they are widely documented and discussed in both books and the press - and really, we should base what goes in the article on reliable sources and not our POVs. Keizers (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I also am a resident (and native) of intown Atlanta, and as a person of color, I must disagree. Atlanta's identity is progressive race relations, which has resulted in a city where everyone can thrive, regardless of skin color. In Atlanta, people are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Progressive race relations is what this city's identity is, and this is the aspect that is documented and discussed in books and the press. --Mmann1988 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not contradicting that in any way. I agree with you about progressive race relations. But progressive race relations doesn't mean that all aspects of the city's life are integrated across races. Far from it. In some ways they are, and in some way there are distinct and separate identities for the concepts of "Atlanta as a center of black professionals", the "black upper class", black (HBCU) education, black political power, and black cinema, music, and art. The identities and concepts are discussed as such in current media and in books (I've provided numerous references and even created articles), and are everyday realities for those of us who live in the City. I just don't want those items - which "exist separately" according to the media and books - to be lost because we "want things to be more integrated". We should discuss generic things generically, but also mark out those distinct items and aspects which are remarkable, and which happen to be black-specific.Keizers (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The city of Atlanta also has the largest concentration of Southern white wealth in the Southeast US. No one talks about Truett Cathy and Chick Fil-A as being "centers of white wealth".Ryoung122 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but I am going on what books and media cover as topics. Do a Google search and a Google news search using "black wealth Atlanta" and you will see it's a significant topic of discussion.Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I really don't think its a good idea (and may even be against Wikipolicy, but I'm not sure) to segregate the article by race, ex. "center of white wealth" or "center of black wealth." Labeling a city a "center of wealth" is itself un-encyclopaedic. The correct phrasing would be "high income" or "high per capita GDP."

Keizers, I am really trying to understand where you are coming from on this, but it is difficult, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems as if you want sections of the article segregated into sub-sections by race, i.e., a non-black history of Atlanta and a black history of Atlanta, or a culture of Atlanta and a black culture of Atlanta. Separate but equal, if you will. Am I correct on this?

That is not correct. I would like to see the sentences that were there before - in the intro and in the body - about Atlanta being a center of black wealth, political power, history and culture. There was a whole discussion about that (well, specifically the term mecca but we had gone back on that term in the meantime). Many people chimed in saying it belonged in the intro.Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to my sock-puppertry and immature antics, that discussion really should be re-initiated and should be centered not on whether mecca is included, but a general discussion on whether there is any top-level, one-sentence conclusion about Atlanta's demographics that should be included in the lede. Basically, we need to reach consensus on this point: statistically and factually, is Atlanta unique among major eastern cities in terms of its demographics? Is it appropriate to mention the multiple demographic trends affecting Atlanta in the lede? Or is this kind of detail is much too specific and minute for the lede, and thus should be dealt with in its proper section (i.e., demographics)?--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any articles or references that claim black culture "exists seperately" from Atlanta's overall culture. Black culture is a component of Atlanta's overall culture, but I don't think anyone could argue that it "exists separately."

I don't mean it exists separately. I mean that the concepts of black wealth, black education, black political power, black history and black culture exist as separate topics which are covered in the press and books. Atlanta's significance in these areas, when they are identified as separate topics, results in it's being called a black mecca, or at least a "center of black wealth, education, etc.". Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to remember Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a special interest magazine. I don't know of any encyclopedia that segregates topics by race, and I don't think its in-line with Wikipolicy. Even if it was appropriate for an encyclopedia to segregate topics based on race, including this specific information may violate WP:POV: I have found many sources arguing that Atlanta is NOT a black mecca due to vast income disparity, high child poverty levels, worrisome drop-out rates, corruption in city government, black-on-black crime, etc. Most of the references you point out take a very rosy, biased, and one-sided view.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted to touch briefly on your comments about matching the article to reality. I wanted to offer my opinion that not only do I think that this should never be a goal of a Wikipedia article; but also that I do not think it is possible for a Wikipedia article to match reality. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to match reality. They can offer facts and statistics, but not emotions or opinions; they can describe how a city was then or is now, but not what it should be; they can describe how an event took place, but they cannot impart how it felt for those who experienced it. Basically, what I am trying to say is that an encyclopedia cannot match everyday reality, in all its complexity.

OK, it's fine for us to stick to what is covered in reliable sources such as books and the major media.Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

These are just my .02 cents. I would love for others to weigh in. I think this is a great discussion, and I am glad I can be a part of it.--Mmann1988 (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmann1988, given the above, do you wish to keep references to Atlanta being a center of black wealth/culture/history/education/political power out of the intro? We have significant references throughout the article about specifically black educational institutions, political power, and culture, and all of these references together add up to an impressive list. These things are why the city is one of only two that American blacks consider a "mecca" (and you have seen all the sources for that ad nauseum). But now again, that aspect is *entirely* absent from the intro, and is in my opinion, buried in the demographics section (and replaced by information which does not seem that significant or unique to me, see "Intro" below". Is that *truly* what we want? Please advise.Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be to exclude any references to demographics from the lede, regardless of the group. There are too many micro-trends in play for all to be mentioned. As for black educational institutions, political power, and culture, they are adequately covered in the education, history, government, and culture sections. Combining these aspects of the city to form a statement that "Atlanta is one of only two that American blacks consider a 'mecca'" actually violates WP:POV. Thus, the only thing we are left with are Atlanta's demographic statistics, which, as I pointed out, are not notable or unique in that they are in-line with every major east coast city.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be POV to state it in those words, but to state that "Atlanta is frequently referred to as a center of..." a center of all those things is simply a fact, given the plethora of press articles, books and other research. Try it on for size as I've just done the edit (in fact it's how it was before for many months after the whole previous discussion about "Atlanta as a black mecca")Keizers (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it would still be POV, even stating it in those terms. Saying that a because sources refer to something in a way makes it factually true violates POV. For example, I could collect a bunch of sources stating that "the U.S. is frequently referred to as a center of democracy." That may be true, or it may not be--the phrase is still not objective, even if the sentence itself is not proclaiming the U.S. as a center of democracy. Do you see my point?

In any case, it is not in-line with the Guideline to include demographic micro-trends in the lead. The only reference to demographics in the intro should be to the population count. This is supported by the awkwardness of the sentence, which seems very out-of-place.--Mmann1988 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any interest in obtaining feedback at WP:PR or finding another way to get an outside opinion? Majoreditor (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so we established that it's not correct to say it's a Mecca because that's POV; and I think we might both agree it's a "center", perhaps some aspects are unique/leading (education, black elite, civil rights cradle) and others aren't (e.g. the simple demographic majority). It seems the argument to keep even "center of…" out of the lead is because it is in reference to a particular demographic group (and by extension, perhaps "unfair" to others like whites or Hispanics). I think you seldom see these references in articles about US cities even when they are overwhelmingly unique aspects of a city (e.g. Miami and Cubans) perhaps due to that sensitivity. Cities in other countries don't seem to have that issue - Salvador Brazil is identified straight away as the capital of Afro Brazilian culture; Nazareth Israel as the center of Arab Israeli culture. I still think we are leaving out something fundamental about the city because it is race related. At the end of the day, Atlanta's unique role with regard to African American culture is absent from the lead, whereas other aspects like "dense tree coverage" - far less important in the human experience - are in there. Keizers (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Other points about the intro: The sentences: "As of 2010, Atlanta is the seventh most visited city in the United States, with over 35 million domestic and overseas visitors annually.[20] Atlanta is renowned for its robust cultural institutions, which draw creative people and audiences to the city." do not really summarize the article, - Atlanta is the 10th largest metro in the US - is its being the 7th most visited really remarkable in that light? - "Atlanta is renowned for its robust cultural institutions" - isn't it really more or less at that level that one would expect in the nation's 10th metro? I think the statement sounds like way of stating "Atlanta isn't the Southern provincial city it used to be with no culture" and I am not sure that's really the point that needs to be proved.Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not really tied to these statements and would not be against their ommission. I do think the one referring to the culture is to say that Atlanta is not as devoid as culture as it is popularly perceived to be. There may be better ways to phrase that though. It may actually make for a better intro if we strike those two sentences and then combine the second and third paragraphs of the intro.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "the seventh most visited city" probably shouldn't be in the lead unless there's a more substantial discussion of tourism in the article. It may be appropriate to move the sentence elsewhere or to remove it entirely. Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It should be moved to the tourism section.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would make the suggestion in line with wikipedia "summary style" that the intro paragraphs try to summarize what is in the article. I wish I were in a position to have a stab at it, but I am traveling right now. Keizers (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion

I'm glad to see the paragraph about religion was replaced. There is a rich sub-article about it, and I don't think that the idea of Wikipedia is that every single template has to be followed to the "t".Keizers (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Music

I don't agree that "Atlanta was never known for a particular genre" even though one source may have said that. Atlanta was famous for Country music. And Atlanta is today the capital of hip-hop/rap (as per the NYT article) - therefore I think it'd be more fair to say that Atlanta was well known for Country in particular and is today well-known for hip-hop/rap in particular. (But it should be written in a way which does not imply that the other genres of music are absent, but simply that Atlanta is not especially noted for them vs. other major US cities). Keizers (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very happy with the paragraph as is, as it accurately describes Atlanta's multifaceted and evolving music scene that is not dominated by one genre. "Atlanta was never known for a particular genre" could be omitted from the paragraph and it would still convey the same meaning to readers by beginning the paragraph with "Atlanta has played a major or contributing role in the development of various genres of American music genres at various points in the city’s history." Also, the paragraph addresses your concern that we not imply "other genres of music are absent, but simply that Atlanta is not especially noted for them vs. other major US cities" since it only includes musical genres Atlanta has been noted for in the past (country, acid rock, Southern rock, punk) and is noted for today (hip hop, indie rock) and does not include every possible musical genre (ex., grunge and blues are omitted).--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I removed that phrase because the phrase contradicts the fact that Atlanta was known for country and is now well-known for hip-hop/rap.Keizers (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article overhaul edit summary

It took a lot of work, but I think the Atlanta article (hereinafter “Atlanta”) is ready for FA nomination. I conducted a complete re-write of the article, removing large amounts of unnecessary information, substituting outdated information with new information, and completely re-structuring the order and flow, from top to bottom. It’s impossible to explain every change here, but I will attempt a summary of what I have done. However, some may wonder what basis I used for my edits. I conducted the overhaul of the article using a hybrid of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (hereinafter “Guideline”) and FAs San Francisco, Detroit, Houston, and Boston (hereinafter “FAs”) as guides. The end result is a hyrbid article that combines the formatting of those pages.

Motivation/disclaimer

Again, I just want to clarify that my single motivation for the edits I have made was for Atlanta to become an FA. There was a lot of info removed, but please, PLEASE do not think it was personal or to further an agenda. Again, my sole motivation was for Atlanta to become an FA.

Culture

This section was completely re-wrote it mostly using the FAs as a guide. However, according to the Guideline, “[t]his section should include a description of the cultural aspects of the city, such as points of interest, museums, libraries...”, not a list of people from the city.

Music

What musical artists are from the city doesn’t really have to do with its culture, and that is covered under the List of people from Atlanta. I did set aside a paragraph to give an overview of Atlanta’s role in certain genres; however, I only included the ones it had a central or contributing role in (hip-hop, Southern Rock) and left out genres it only played a minor role in (blues, grunge).

Film

Atlanta is no Los Angeles. Unlike that city, where the film industry is such an integral part of the city’s economy that it seeps into the city’s culture, Atlanta’s film industry is purely an aspect of the city’s economy. Thus, I moved it to that section. Perhaps in time Atlanta’s film industry will become so ever-present that it extends to the city’s culture. However, right now, it is purely an economic element.

History

I’m not sure why the History section was so short. Houston was established the same year as Atlanta, yet its history section was about three times as long as Atlanta. A lot has happened in Atlanta, and many key events had been omitted, despite their significance. The current incarnation of the history section is a very succinct summary of the main History of Atlanta article.

Metro Atlanta

I removed information about metro Atlanta from every section except “Economy.” This article is about the city, not the metro. However, for the economy, it is impossible to separate the city from the metro. Including references to the metro in a section like Demographics is not appropriate nor necessary.

Religion

As a religious person, it does sadden me to see how much it has been scrubbed from the public sphere. Wikipedia is no exception, and not a single FA article included religion, and the Guideline offered no advice to whether it should be included (it isn’t in the Guideline template). Perhaps we can find a way to work it into the demographics section?

Gentrification

All the information about gentrification, arguably the most relevant and influential factor in the composition of contemporary Atlanta, affecting everything from demographics, economy, to politics, was removed. I restored this information.

Tree Canopy

Atlanta’s tree canopy is unique, and as such, it can be classified as a “topic specific to the city.” The Guideline suggested topics specific to a city be placed at the end of an article. The previous incarnation places the tree canopy in the parks section, which is a bit inaccurate, since I would guess that most of the city’s trees are not located in parks.

The language that the tree canopy is "under assault" is POV. Should be changed to something more factual. 96.35.201.96 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I removed the information about demographics from the lede, since Atlanta’s current demographic makeup is not notable enough to warrant mention in the lede, as the city’s demographics are in-line with almost every other majority or plurality black city on the east coast:

• Atlanta: 54.0% African American, 38.4% white, 3.1% Asian and 0.2% Native American, other races 2.2%, two or more races 2.0%. Hispanics of any race, 5.2%.
• Washington, D.C.: 50.7% African American, 38.5% white, 3.5% Asian, and 0.3% Native American, other races 4.1%, two or more races 2.9%. Hispanics of any race 9.1%.
• Baltimore: 63.7% African American, 29.6% white, 2.3% Asian, 0.4% Native American, other races 0.2%, 2.1% of two or more races. Hispanics of any race, 4.2%.
• Philadelphia: 43.4% African American, 41% white, 6.3% Asian, .5% Native American. Other races 5.9%, two or more races 2.8%. Hispanics of any race, 12.3%.

A lede should be general, not specific. The only demographic information that needs to be present is the city’s population. Other information, including demographic trends, should only be addressed in the proper section.

Feedback

Please let me know what you all think! --Mmann1988 (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation Data

The article states: "... 63% of Atlantans live within a 10-minute walk of a park, placing the city just above the national average of 62%."

This data is from 2012 and inaccurate. According to the Trust for Public Land's 2013 ParkScore rankings - which analyzes acreage, access, and service/investment in city park systems - 64% of Atlantans live within a 10-minute walk of a park, placing the city at the national average (of 64%). Source 1Source 2

Also, it would be useful to include a sentence about the city's ParkScore ranking. This would give readers context about the success of Atlanta's city park system as compared to the 50 most populous cities in the US. Atlanta ranks 31st, tied with Tulsa. It has a raw score of 45/100.

I tried to update this information twice, but it has been reverted back to its original content. Can anyone tell me why this information is being deleted?

Sorry, I was the one reverting it. I mischaracterized the source as unreliable, so that was my mistake. I added the ParkScore content, but put it in a place that preserves the structure and flow of the paragraph.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your help with this. The information sounds great and flows nicely!

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you be adding a bunch of sub-sections, or just moving the existing sections around? Some cities, like Dallas, have way too many sub-sections.--Mmann1988 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead photo montage

I counted nine pictures in the lead montage, which is easily 3-4 more snapshots than the other major cities of the world. Atlanta is a fine city, and you really don't have to try so hard. Just some friendly advice...--Chimino (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The newest photo Montage has 3 images of the Atlanta skyline + 1 of Manhattan? Why? I don't have the time/images on hand to make a change. Does anyone have anything? Cwkimbro (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The first photo in the montage is of the downtown and midtown skyline, not of Buckhead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.105.57 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Captions for skyline pics in the neighborhood section

Hi. User:Mmann1988 brought up some very valid points in making an edit I reverted regarding the 3 photos in the cityscape section. The captions read: Downtown, Midtown and Uptown. Mmann brought up the point that uptown section of Atlanta is called Buckhead, and wants to change the caption on the photo to indicate that. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but as it is now, stylistically, it gives a symmetry to the photos, and while Buckhead is correct, Uptown is not incorrect. I think Buckhead is more correct, but Uptown fits in more with the layout. Rather than simply change it, I thought it might be good to get other's thoughts. Onel5969 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It should remain Buckhead until consensus is reached that "Uptown," which is not a place, should be used instead. Uptown would be incorrect, as it is not a proper noun when used to refer to Buckhead. Perhaps "the uptown district of Atlanta" would work, but Uptown, as a proper noun, would be incorrect.--Mmann1988 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ATL as an international city/metro

I see material is back that states Atlanta is one of the most multi-cultural cities in the US. While I think Atlanta is an interesting place, and understand the point that "Atlanta is not particularly Southern" except in its historical roots, the numbers do not show that Atlanta has a lot of foreign born residents. The city has 7.8% foreign born as of 2008-2012, which is actually one of the lowest %ages (see this list).

As Demographics of Atlanta states:

Metro Atlanta is increasingly international, with its 716,434 foreign-born residents in 2010, a 69% increase versus 2000. This was the fourth largest rate of growth among the nation's top 100 metros, after Baltimore, Orlando and Las Vegas. The foreign-born proportion of the population went up from 10.3% to 13.6%, and Atlanta moved up from 14th to 12th in ranking of US metro areas with the largest immigrant population by sheer numbers. Still, its 13.6% proportion of immigrants is only the 29th highest of the nation's top 100 metros.

How can you change the text so that the point is made, without using a statement which factually is not supported by the census numbers? Keizers (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a List of U.S. cities by foreign-born population showing where Atlanta lies among cities >200,000 total population (yes, I need to add rank numbers!) -- towards the bottom. Keizers (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Elevation

The article states "Atlanta has the highest elevation of major cities east of the Mississippi River." It then links to a website listing altitudes of US major cities. It isn't on the first page but Pittsburgh PA is listed at 1,203 ft. and Atlanta is 1,050 ft. Pittsburgh is a major city east of the Mississippi River. I think this should be deleted, and it's discouraging that contributors post facts without looking through their own sources.

TheWhiz410 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Economy

The last section in the Economy section of the article is of dubious neutrality in tone. It reads like an argumentative essay with a clear thesis ("The city's economic problems are displayed [...]"), using value-laden descriptors not found in the sources ("a meager 0.4%", "These dismal statistics", "This unprecedented collapse") and editorializing on data found in sources ("Thus, Atlanta's current economic crisis was only worsened, and not caused, by the Recession."). It is also heavy on statistical comparisons; surely several statements could be cut to reduce wordiness. Please discuss changes, if any, that should be made to this section to bring it back in line with Wikipedia's neutrality standards. 72.215.49.159 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The integration of Atlanta public schools

The integration of Atlanta public schools begin in 1961 and by 1970 most all Atlanta city schools were integrated. The article reads as if integration did not occur until 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltgrass (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Atlanta

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Salzburg

The following discussion thread is copied from: User talk:Onel5969#May 2015 (Dispute's source: SIC claims that Salzburg is a twin city of Atlanta. However, Salzburg official website does not list Atlanta as a twin city.) -- ZH8000 (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Clarification note: the material in this section, from my first  Comment: forward, posted 19:21 May 30, 2015, is original to this thread, and not copied from another source. — Neonorange (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I take a WP:NPOV position. I do not deny SCI's point of view, but you should also accept that this reference is not given by Salzburg's official website. I does not matter whether it's Atlanta's or Salzburg's page. Please check the WP policies! It is "just" a note! ZH8000 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ZH8000 - SCI's position is not "a point of view". They are the accrediting agency in regards to this. Your position would be like saying someone isn't an academy award winner, simply because it's not listed on someone else's biography, who was the co-winner with them. The fact that the co-winner didn't list it, does not invalidate the Academy's position, being the accrediting agency. If Salzburg doesn't wish to list it, that's there prerogative. According to the agency in charge of bestowing the distinction, they are sister cities. Not a matter of opinion. Not a point of view. A fact. Therefore your note is misleading at best. Please check WP policies, facts are not subject to discussion! Onel5969 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are not applicable, not at all. SCI is not an independent organisation. Further an US-american one. And secondly, Sister Cities, or whatever you may call it, is not an award, but a formal agreement between two municipalities, formally signed between them. Thirdly, there is no reason for Salzburg's government not to publish it (it could be an error, but we do not know it). WP:NPOV is not about opinions, but about the documentation of different presentations, here, about SIC's and the official Salzburg. It is not our decision to judge it, but simply to doument it. And the note I added does nothing else than this, documenting a different "factual situation"! Thanks for acknowledge these facts.

Besides, would you restrain from modifying my own text, even on your talk page! WP:TALK -- ZH8000 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

First, you don't seem to understand the difference between a talk page of an article, which is the guideline you cite above (WP:TALK) versus an editor's own talk page, which I have explained to you is more appropriately guided by WP:OWNTALK. Second, this isn't an issue of POV, it is not a matter of opinion. SCI is the governing body which recognizes the official agreements between sister cities. A city can say they are the sister city of London, but if that agreement is not recognized by the SCI organization, then guess what, they ain't sister cities. This isn't a big issue to me. Not sure what you mean that SCI is not an independent organization, since it is, and has been since 1967. There are many types of city inter-relationships, "twinning", "trade-partnerships", etc. Being a "Sister City" is a very specific designation, and is governed by SCI. If you check page 35 of the membership directory, you'll see that Salzburg is listed as a Sister City of Atlanta. Further, if you look at page 49, you'll also see that Atlanta is listed as Salzburg's Sister City. Not sure why Salzburg doesn't have their sister city on their website, certain cities don't, even in this country. Salzburg's city website does not mention the sister city program at all, but does speak to other types of city relationships. Regardless, as I said earlier, this isn't a big thing for me. Onel5969 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously wrong about WP:OWNTALK, which is a part of WP:TALK.

I do NOT contradict to most points you mention regarding Salzburg (except for the independability of SCI). AND my added note says nothing else than what you just said. So there was never a legitimate reason to carelessly undo it, right from the beginning. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is my last interaction with you, since you are so uncivil. Not sure what part of "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." you don't understand. (from WP:OWNTALK). And just for good measure, there's WP:REMOVED, and the ever-popular WP:DRRC, and you might also take a look at WP:NOBAN, since I've asked you politely several times not to edit on my talk page. Have a good life. Oh, and now you're in violation of the WP:3RR rule. Onel5969 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: For those interested in resolving this content dispute, I offer a copy of the proclamation by the Mayor of Atlanta, and the Mayor of Salzburg, signed in 1967, proclaiming Salzburg, Austria and Atlanta, Georgia, USA sister cities: [7]. This is from the website, [8], of the organization Sister Cities International, and this [[9]] is the page explaining the organization, beginning with the following paragraph

Founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, Sister Cities International is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit which serves as the national membership organization for individual sister cities, counties, and states across the U.S. This network unites tens of thousands of citizen diplomats and volunteers in 545 communities with over 2,100 partnerships in 145 countries on six continents.

I hope this helps. — Neonorange (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neonorange - How did you find that? I can't figure out on the SCI site where to look for those types of items. Onel5969 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Neonorange, yes I know. And for the third time: I do not contradict it, not at all. And my added note to Salzburg's listing does not contradict it, neither. It just simply says, that Atlanta is not listed on Salzburg's official website as a Sister City. And again: I never said something else, again and again, right from the beginning. Only Onel5969 did unthinkingly undo it for several times obviously without considering its simply understandable content. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:I think it would be helpful if I do not respond directly to posts here. My position is that this is a simple content dispute, and that resolution will come from relying on reliable sources. The sources I have posted are gathered from using Google. In my opinion, those sources are reliable, and should definitively decide the question. Here [10] is an additional source, and another [11], and another [12]. Please add reliable sources, and/or ask for other eyes on this dispute. — Neonorange (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Neonorange: Dear neonrange, I repeat myself even for the forth time now, what I just said above: I do not contradict your referred sources. The note I added to Salzburg's listing does neither.

Besides, let me make a personal remark about your "comment remark": Either you take part in a discussion and take position, whatever it may be (pro, contra, neutral, factual or whatever), or you stay away from stating any remark just from the beginning; anything else is just bloodless humming and hawing. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you adding that note? Maybe it isn't on the website of Salzburg, but it seems that you are trying to cast doubt on whether or not they are sister cities. I haven't been here for any of this discussion so far, so if I've gotten any wrong impressions, I'm sorry, but how is this helpful? Dustin (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

After further research, I have come across an article in what seems to be a respectable, if perhaps not WP:RS, website that has the current Atlanta city government promising to re-energize their relationships with "estranged" sister cities [13] (my interpretation of that characterization is that no organized volunteer committees exist for the relationship in each of the two cities). For me, the best solution[in this case for Atlanta is to leave the sister city and remove the note. An estranged sister is still a sister, and, absent a revocation of the proclamation signed by their respective mayors, Salzburg is still properly sourced as an Atlanta sister city. "Estranged" does not seem a useful note, and the present negative note does not even rise to absence of evidence. — Neonorange (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Auto assembly plants in Atlanta

An editor recently reverted, from Atlanta#Economics, "At one time, the Atlanta area had three automotive manufacturing facilities; Doraville Assembly and Lakewood Assembly operated by General Motors, and Atlanta Assembly in Hapeville operated by Ford. All three manufacturing locations have been demolished.", using the edit sumary, "unreferenced". While the paragraph is uncited, it is factual, uncontroversial, and easily soured as a simple statement of fact (aside from none of the three actually being inside the city limits), and "unreferenced" is better handled with a citation needed tag for that question. However, the real question is where the content belongs. I reinstated the paragraph, and argue that it is a historical fact in the devolopment of Atlanta economic history (the city has a now demolished steel plant actually in Atlanta, rather than just in the 'Atlanta area'), and is an essential part of the shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, with a committant loss of unionized jobs. And that the rise and fall of industrial production in the Atlanta area is part of the economic history of Atlanta. So where to put the paragraph in question? — Neonorange (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neonorange - the reason I reverted is the fact that there is no citation to back it up as a pertinent addition to the current economy of Atlanta. At best it belongs in the Economy of Atlanta article, but that a pretty hot mess. It's not important enough to be in the History section, and it's not current economy. Hence my revert. If there was a History of Atlanta Economy, it would belong there. Anyway, that was my thinking. Onel5969 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I agree with you about the 'hot mess' at AE. And, obviously, in the status quo ante, since I restored that. Two parts to my thinking: (1) I had been researching that very initial contribution when you be me to action—I thought it was best to encourage the contribution, but argue for a different location, and (2) with the tepid Economy of Atlanta, the only place would be in the current history section. The existence of those plants, and the steel mill, is the apex of the industrialization of the urban South, beginning with the Civil War, through Reconstruction, and the movement of the textile industry fro the Northeast. It is, in fact the driving force in Atlanta history, obscured only in the overall de-industrialization of the USA. I know this is a big topic, and could not reasonably fit into a city's history section, save as a single sentence with a blue link to a definitive article; oh, wait, there are huge gaps in the History of Atlanta article. At any rate, this is much more significant than tall buildings in Atlanta, a mere score card—perhaps that should be spun off into a suitable list article, and this section expanded.

A consideration for Atlanta is the relative tiny population in comparison to the Metropolitan Area, less than 8%. There are historical reasons for that, likely connected with the feudal tails of the plantation system; it makes it difficult to tweeze out Atlanta history from the area history.

So, now I understand why you consider cities so fascinating B^€ — Neonorange (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419091606/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/company-activities-management/company-locations-facilities/6399916-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-locations-facilities/6399916-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111208211609/http://spelman.edu/academics/enrichment/census/pdf/cicnewsletterjan2009vs2.pdf to http://www.spelman.edu/academics/enrichment/census/pdf/cicnewsletterjan2009vs2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140814230029/http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf to http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218203743/http://www.museumofdesign.org/about.htm to http://www.museumofdesign.org/about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225201702/http://www.atlantafalcons.com:80/People/Alumni/History.aspx to http://www.atlantafalcons.com/People/Alumni/History.aspx

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sister cities

I boldly removed the "sister city" section, and was asked to start a section here.[14] I found the content appearing to be wp:fancruft, insignificant triva, promotional to Sister Cities International, and inappropriately sourced. Wikipedia asks for articles to be based off of WP:RS#Overview: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There are no secondary, third-party sources for this section. I do not understand why this section is needed to have encyclopedic coverage of Atlanta. I think it unduly gives weight (violates WP:NPOV) to a concept with primary sourcing. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Whie I personally have no use for these sections, they are a common feature of many city articles, so other editors appear to find them useful. It might be better to raise the issue at WT:CITIES, and get that project's input there. - BilCat (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I wonder, though, if that would be a niche of the website where one would find opinions that deviate from a more randomly generated consensus. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said when I removed my comments, "it's clear you are only interested in pushing your own views, not seeking input from others." Good day. - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I also find them somewhat unappealing, but also don't have an issue with their inclusion either. They do seem to take up an inordinate amount of time as ips are continually adding their favorite foreign cities to the lists, which then have to be removed. The section is very well-sourced, being cited by SCI, which is pretty much the gold standard. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Sister cities is a pretty good summation of the consensus we reached at the City project and US Cities. If you go to the talk page and search the archives (here's a link), you can see the two discussions US Cities has had in the last couple of years. Here is a nice discussion that took place on the city project. There are others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored the Sister City section; the removal argument asserted is contrary to reality. Perhaps more persuasive arguments might be found, but section blanking on a single article out of a huge class is not the place, as is pointed out above, nor the way to make them. — Neonorange (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Temporary protection request

Hi,

I've noticed quite a bit of vandalism on this page. Perhaps an admin could set autoconfirmed protection for 2 weeks or something?

Thanks,
Enigma

[ EnigmaLord515 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ]

Hi EnigmaLord515 - on the top of your screen there should be the letters TW, hover over them and a drop down menu should appear. One of the choices should be "RPP" (which stands for Request Page Protection). You can click that and give admins your reasons for the request. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, I don't see 'TW' OR 'RPP'. I checked via CTRL+F and inspect element, but that didn't help. What are you talking about?

[ EnigmaLord515 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ]

EnigmaLord515 - Hmmm. Perhaps it's something you need to download. On the top of the page towards the right, there are: "Read"; "Edit"; "New Section"; "View History". After view history there is the "star" so you can add the page to your watchlist, then "More". "TW" shoule be between "more" and the search window. It stands for "Twinkle". If you go to your "Preferences", there is a tab marked "Gadgets". The first section is labeled "Browsing". In that section, about 2/3 of the way down is "Twinkle". Click on it, then save. After you save, you need to bypass your cache. After you do that, the TW should appear on your browser header where I describe above. Let me know if that worked for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Onel5969. It worked!

[ EnigmaLord515 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ]

IPA pronunciations for 'Atlanta' Suggestion

Recently a editor added a 'local' IPA pronunciation for 'Atlanta', alongside the existing IPA pronunciation. A second editor then removed the local version, calling it slangy. Well, we don't judge material as suitable for WP articles based on our feelings as t what sounds right, nor by how long we've heard 'Atlanta' spoken.

American English pronunciation is certainly not prescriptive. So I recommend we find WP:RS and discuss whether we really want to open this kettle of fish. I came across these edits from my watch list, and found myself running my mouth on Atlanta embedded in several phrases. Depending on the rest of the phrase, I used at least four pronunciations: both t's, first t only, last t only, and no t's at all. For example the Alana Braves are going to the World Series! The prominence ot the two t's varies with phrasing and excitement levels. And certainly there is no one local pronunciation: the city is too diverse by class, nationality, origin, and education. And in the time I've lived in and around Atlanta, the state population has trippled, schools were desecrated desegregated, the African-American Civil Rights Movement occured, and the diversity of the Atlanta area expanded greatly. As best I can hear my usual pronunciation, the first 't' gets swallowed between the A and the lan; just not enough time to get more than a hint of a 't' as the toung goes forward to begin 'lan'; and the finial sound becomes 'na', with scant time for a real tip of the toung 't'.

I think if any iIPA pronunciation goes back in, it should be supported by a reliable source that makes specific reference to the pronucation of Atlanta. — Neonorange (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My take: is that the first "t" is almost always a hard consonant pronunciation emphasized by the accentuation on the first syllable, and the pronunciation of the second "t" is invariably softer but still present. Pronouncing the word as "Atlanna" (or "Alanna") is just wrong, and does not not represent standard spoken English. In the absence of a reliable source that suggests the mispronounced "Atlanna" version is regionally predominant, it should be omitted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, our difference in 'take' is why I took both IPA's out. The added 'local' IPA had no RS citation, and the original also had none. English is not a prescriptive language—a single IPA is neither sufficient or necessary. Best to go bare—cf New York City, Atlantic Ocean, Atlantis... — Neonorange (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting site (Oxford University Press) [[15]] wherein the audible pronunciation given for Atlanta has, to my ears, little, if any, evidence of the first 't', but a very definite second 't', for North American English. That final 't' isn't going to survive when the speaking rate moves above 300 wpm. So I'm good with no IPA and open to discussing alternatives.

The correct pronunciation of the city's name in standard English so closely tracks its simple spelling that I really see no need for an IPA pronunciation guide. This is not a Native American, French or Spanish-originated or influenced place name that has been corrupted or evolved in modern English like Arkansas, Biloxi, Chattahoochee, Illinois or New Orleans. In this case, I think the IPA is redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. — Neonorange (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the argument against including both, similar to other cities that can be pronounced in multiple ways, such as Chicago?--Mmann1988 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As stated above by Dirtlawyer1, IPA isn't necessary in this case. Also, as above, a list of multiple specific pronunciations is unnecessary (where to stop, where to find and how to judge RS). And, as above, see New York City, Atlantic Ocean, and Atlantis. In the case of Chicago, the two IPA's given are so close as to beg the same solution—neither. — Neonorange (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

World city rank Comment

In the lede, the sentence Atlanta is considered an "alpha-" or "world city", ranking 15th among world cities and sixth in the nation with a gross domestic product of $270 billion. is not supported by the cite (neither the 15th (world) nor the sixth (national) rank. According to the cite the correct rankings are 45th in the world and eight in the U.S. I've corrected the rankings to reflect the cite (a 2012 ranking). I am adding a belated sig to this post I made January 18, 2015 (to assure archiving). — Neonorange (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090824215442/http://www.hlamarwillis.com:80/CityCouncil.htm to http://www.hlamarwillis.com/CityCouncil.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is there deletionism on Atlanta transportation infrastructure?

Editor User:BilCat has deleted the following without explanation from the Atlanta article. Atlanta's transportation infrastructure comprises a complex network that includes a heavy rail intercity passenger line, several freight rail lines, a rapid transit system, a streetcar line, multiple interstate highways, the world's busiest airport, and over 45 miles (72 kilometres) of bike paths. Additionally, proposals are underway for utilizing the network of rail lines to create a commuter rail system for the region.

Editor User:BilCat gave no rationale in the edit summary; nor did editor User:BilCat give a rationale on this talk page for his deletion. Yet, the facts in the deleted section are there. See for example this reference: www.georgiarail.org/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Rail_Passenger_Program . Dogru144 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I did give a valid rationale: Unsourced, which was correct. Another editor partially restored the info. What exactly is your remaining issue? (I'm assuming the diff I cited is the one you have issue with, as you didn't even give a date for the edit in question.) - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815134909/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815134909/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218203321/http://urbanhealth.gsu.edu/files/gsu_public_housing_report1.pdf to http://urbanhealth.gsu.edu/files/gsu_public_housing_report1.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815134909/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2003/11_livingcities_Atlanta/atlanta.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513194342/https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=3421&NewsAreaID=2 to https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=3421&NewsAreaID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213175803/http://www.georgia.org/GeorgiaIndustries/Entertainment/FilmTV/Pages/FilmFacts.aspx to http://www.georgia.org/GeorgiaIndustries/Entertainment/FilmTV/Pages/FilmFacts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408183722/http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q4hr.pdf to http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q4hr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230102913/http://blogs.ajc.com/inside-access/2009/09/17/atlanta-a-national-geographic-traveler-place-of-a-lifetime/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/inside-access/2009/09/17/atlanta-a-national-geographic-traveler-place-of-a-lifetime/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Whittling down the dead links

A few days ago someone used the (often malfunctioning) Checklinks script to drop no less than 46 dead link tags into the article. Yikes. It turned out many of these tags were bogus - either the links weren't dead or there were perfectly good Internet Archive links already supplied. I've whittled the mess down by removing the bogus ones, and fixing up as many of the rest as I can. I'm going a bit wonky at this point, my eyes can't focus from looking at so many Internet Archive URLs. So I'm going to leave the last 7 remaining tags for someone else to clean up - just search for "dead link" in the article. Let me know if I messed up anything. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dubious elevation claim

In the *Geography* section, there is a claim: at 1,050 feet (320 m) above mean sea level, Atlanta has the highest elevation of major cities east of the Mississippi River. The cited reference in fact lists at least three other cities in the Eastern US with higher elevations, including Pittsburgh PA (1203 ft), Akron OH (1228 ft), and Asheville NC (2165 ft). Perhaps Akron and Asheville are not *major* cites, but surely Pittsburgh is. MatthewZimmerman (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)