Talk:Clawson, Michigan

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Detroit task force.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

It is requested that an image or photograph of Clawson, Michigan be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

11 mile is NOT the southern border of Clawson. 11 Mile is Royal Oak, the first city south of Clawson on Main St.

November 2007 Edits

Your need to insult me here is inappropriate. You assert you've "been cleaning up" my stuff for "weeks" - yet you link to the ONLY OTHER links I've inserted over the last several months (hardly "getting old" and hardly of the nature that is spam and hardly of the "abject commentary" nature since no opinions were inserted and no cause was advanced). Also, you should read the Wiki policy on calling other genuinely motivated entries "spam" or badly motivated (I can't cite the exact policy location - I'm not a wiki-guru like you - I've read it once). You've failed to contact me directly (my e-mail is publicly available, unlike yours) to explain your concerns. I've been polite here - you are not being polite. As to news content - all newspapers publish "original work". An interview by a reporter of a public figure is no less "original" than my interviews of public officials. A newspaper should be afforded no "special status" over "citizen reporters" if the content provided meets certain standards - that's the very essence of Wikipedia's purpose - to provide information that meets certain standards regardless of other factors. Newspapers typically have an assumed credibility that's harder to dispute than that of others, but you can't just dismiss my work without some evidence of my non-reliability. Additionally, providing a link to obviously factual and non-controversial material such as a candidate interview is hardly the source of controversial stuff. My reading of the NOR policy is that 1) the facts can't be "unpublished" (I published them in a third party source, that I happen to own and edit) 2) they can't advance a particular position, or violate the NPOV policy. The NOR policy also states clearly, "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." [1] Additionally, contacting me rather than flaming me, would have been more appropriate.

I'm not entirely sure how you've taken this as some sort of personal insult. In any case, that's not my intention. I would go out on a limb and say that recognizable links in multiple entries to someone doing cleanup tends to appear excessive. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

I'm quite familiar with Wiki policy, thanks. That's why I was pointing you there, and that's why I didn't report you for spamming. What you don't seem to recognize is that nobody needs to e-mail you about deleting your self-promoting links. If you took issue with me deleting it, you should have used (and are still welcome to use) my talk page.

All things being equal, at the end of the day, you're doing original research (I'm not casting aspersions as to whether or not you're actually interviewing people or not), and you're not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. The "source" is your website. No matter how you slice it, it's not an unbiased third party. It's your self-promotion. You're more than welcome to take this to dispute resolution if you think your interpretation of policy is better than mine. -- Kevin 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are casting that aspersion. You also have not justified why I'm not notable under Wiki guidelines? What makes me not notable. Given that local public TV host Charlie Langton (award winning NPOV host) had me on air live via phone election night providing coverage of the City of Clawson and City of Troy elections with analysis and up to the minute coverage, I probably qualify as a specialist for those areas. Regardless, that's not the fundamental base of my argument. I'm not commenting on California cities or elections - I'm commenting in the area of my knowledge (even if its not specialist). My website is a political news site that produces news and commentary. I'm not linking the commentary - I'm linking factual news. I have enough credibility in the industry certainly to overcome the possibility that I'm "making up interviews" as you just implied by even mentioning and dismissing that crazy possibility).

If you're as notable a journalist and political insider as you make yourself out to be, why are Wikipedia's policies so elusive to you? The "burden of proof" doesn't lie on me to prove that you're not notable. It lies on you (and others) to prove that you are. I am a famous astronaut, and I have held a conversation with a Carl Sagan. Therefore, I am also an expert in astrophysics. Unless you can prove otherwise, that's 100% true.

What is it under Wiki guidelines that 1) makes me not notable for the areas I'm asserting notability 2) makes the informational content of a candidate interview not notable (note, under Wiki guidelines here, the source of publication need not be "notable" if the content itself is notable to the reader of the entry, so long as the source is credible, salient, and NPOV) particularly during the critical time of an election. Why are listings of losers names in the most recent election not notable? Particularly in the closest election in the county, decided 1055 - 1035. Indeed, the vote total would suggest that the loser's name is notable to 49.6% of the city population - and only .8% less notable than the winner's name - but its not notable to to you? In fact, knowing that a community is that closely divided, might be notable as an implicit fact. Yet you delete all of it.Chetlyzarko 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're serious about "cleaning up" NOR stuff, you'll need to delete the same kind of stuff from other political news websites out there that are all over Wikipedia. Start by removing all the citations from MichiganLiberal.com. See, I have no problem with them adding their allegedly useful content, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to have a discussion on what is useful or not useful, that's a different story.

This is such a tired argument. "Well, _________ is worse than me. Why don't you try to police all of Wikipedia?" never flies. If you think something's wrong with certain cites, you fix them. The fact that nobody's done cleanup on certain articles should never be interpreted as complete and total acceptance from the community at large. -- Kevin 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you know my public identity because my login is my name, and I only have your login as a first name, it is impossible to determine whether the pattern of your edits is for self-promotion or not. You could be deleting entries for self-promoting reasons too. Regardless, the wiki COI policy place primacy the content dispute if there is one over the question of whether a COI exists. You have not justified your deletions in terms of why they are not productive content. You have also started from the assumption that I'm "self-promoting", violating the wiki-policy that you should start from a good faith assumption. You cite a "history of self-promotion," which stops at two incidents spread over two months - where I merely list my publications as relevant regional publications for the geographic area. A review of local geographic entries reveals a number of cities or regions where local media links are listed. I believe, and believed at point of entry, in good faith, that provided relevant links to a local news source publication was a productive and useful thing to the reader that might transit that geographic page looking for regional publications. Whether or not my publication is notable, I guess, is a live question. You note that it's a tired argument that other articles require the same cleanup, but I would note that if similarly situated publications to my own are accepted throughout the wiki-community, that is evidence of community acceptance of the general notability of certain types of internet-only publications. That my direct competitors are not routinely deleted is evidence of notability and community acceptance. Combine that with large scale acceptance by third-party publishers (in the "mainstream media") of work I've produced, and I have a case for notability. To borrow your strained analogy, am I a "famous astronaut" - no; but an astronaut - yes.Chetlyzarko 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got my first initial and last name. My user page should enable anyone who can master a phone book to identify me, should they have the inclination. Every edit I've made is logged. By all means, find something in my history where I sprinkled an item with links to my personal site.

I haven't justified my deletions to your personal satisfaction, which I'm reasonably convinced is impossible, given your responses. Assuming good faith (the "policy" you're referring to) is rather difficult to do, when you were clearly doing self promotion. Claiming otherwise is simply absurd. Links that just happen to go to your personal site, which happens to have an agenda...

Like I said before, the fact that certain articles haven't been cleaned up is not evidence of consensus. One of the inherent issues your retort raises is that the average person couldn't determine who your "direct competitors" are. If you're as notable as you insist you are, make an article for yourself, and see if it passes muster. -- Kevin 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the election is now past, re-inserting both questionnaires would be moot. However, I've made some factual improvements in the next set of edits and will make more when I give more thought to it.

Excellent. I haven't looked yet, but I'm hopeful that they're improvements that help everybody, and not more self-promotion. -- Kevin 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this response is of the arrogant, snide over-the-top nature of all your comments. You "haven't looked yet" yet you raise the spectre of "more self-promotion". And how did my improvements not "help everybody." Chetlyzarko 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elections are among the most important things we do in society. You'd think providing informational NPOV links to candidate positions would be a notable and worthy service.

Chetlyzarko 09:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about elections. But again, things aren't wonderful and NPOV simply because you personally declare them to be. -- Kevin 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, things aren't terrible or non-NPOV simply because you personally declare them to be. You have never explained how the entry of links to candidate questionnaires for all candidates in a race would be non-NPOV. You have suggested a lack of notability only to the publisher of that information, and falsely implied it to be wiki-policy that self-publication was prohibited. Chetlyzarko 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I take this to dispute resolution, I'd like some consensus here. I can accept that the second reference to myself as editor is probably gratuitous, but I'd like a serious explanation as to how public service questionnaires addressed to both candidates (NPOV) is either spamming or some other violation of Wiki policy. My proposed edit has been made.

Chetlyzarko 09:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "gratuitous" is putting it mildly. I've been cleaning up your self-promotion on Oakland County articles for weeks, and it's getting old.

Please take a few moments to read WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, WP:NN, and WP:CITE. -- Kevin 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now twice had my entries deleted as "link spamming". I understood the first one which provided no context other than a link to my website - the second one though provided original news comment. Given that my own work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal in the past and I am an internet publisher, I lay claim to being a credible source - - particularly when I publish original interviews with local officials on my local news website. Original interviews are not spam - spam involves at least a degree of irrelevancy - that content is highly relevant. The primary purpose of my website is not commercial (no more so than the Detroit News is).

Declaring yourself a notable and credible journalist does not make you a notable and credible journalist any more than claiming to be a famous astronaut makes me a famous astronaut. Nevermind the fact that Wikipedia policy on original research is VERY explicit. -- Kevin 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I had my factual edits on the "resignation" of local officials removed, despite the editor leaving the link to the local news article I cited in place. His comment was that for Wiki purposes resignations don't occur until a citation is made. The local news (a print publication) article states clearly:

"Running for mayor are Kurt Hack and Penny Luebs. Mayor Lisa Dwyer is not seeking re-election. Hack and Luebs had to resign their council seats to run for mayor. The election is Nov. 6"

Those edits should be reverted. If the cleaner had read the article, those edits would not be necessary.

Chetlyzarko 09:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is notable. Your abject commentary is not. -- Kevin 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of phrases like "abject commentary" is among the reasons I have interpreted this as personal. Chetlyzarko 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a citation for the following:

"Today, Clawson remains one of the least racially-integrated cities in Oakland County."

--JChap 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Clawson really upscale (first sentence)? I always thought it was more a working-class town. When I lived there as a kid my dad was a blue-collar employee of Chrysler. None of my friends were rich, and some kids were actually kinda' poor. Though I lived there in the 1970s, I don't think the city has changed that much. My house had a modest two bedrooms (three if you convert the attic, as many did), as are 90% of the houses where I lived (Massoit). The same houses are still there. MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.1.14 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous alumni

Eric Lehr needs to be kept in this section. He is a locally known vocalist and pageant performer within the city and has won several awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.117.174 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me.Spears154 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Clawson, Michigan. 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:

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Clawson, Michigan. 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:

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) 05:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]