Jump to content

Talk:Decline of Detroit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sources to draw from

Here are some sources from past discussions about Detroit. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Educated black flight

In Detroit, white flight has been followed by a recognizable phase of educated black flight, leaving the city dominated by the most anti-social. Valetude (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

International bankruptcies

How does this compare to city bankruptcy in other countries? Is there even a similar procedure outside the U.S.? Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I tagged this because it lacks balance/neutrality, and the title is just inaccurate. The title inaccurately implies that there has been no new building restorations, no new auto plants built, no new business moving into Detroit, no new buildings constructed and that crime just goes higher and higher. The title is particularly insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people who have built & maintained successful homes and businesses in the city. It says to them you don't count and certain kinds of people want to choose to pretend you don't exist. If this article isn't deleted, the title should at least be changed to something more accurate and balanced such as Decline and Revitalization in Detroit or Neglect Versus Revitalization in Detroit

I have also noticed that a lot of the sources in this article are either inaccurately quoted or very dubious. A while back I corrected some of the extremely dubious white supremacist stuff in the Poor literacy levels section in this article. I just now looked at the sources in the population decline section and I am seeing major misquotes thereLance Friedman (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The proper balance is obtained by summarizing the best sources about the topic. Let's identify the best sources and draw primarily from them. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lance Friedman, the article is not neutral, some of the reasons are stated below in the POV title section. The city has seen and continues to see major revitalizations in the $ billions. The comprehensive study recommended less than 1% needed demolition and the Detroit Free Press noted that most of the city's housing is in good condition. The city has state of the art facilities, great neighborhoods, remodeled corporate center, state of the art schools, a major university, major retooled manufacturing facilities, etc., besides those in the region. The homeowner vacancy rate is 2.9%, in line with the national average. The city of Detroit presently has a much higher population density than Atlanta, for example. The city of Detroit alone has a $1.1 billion budget at present, higher spending per person than Atlanta with its $542 million budget, with no mention the effect of public sector union contracts and their cost to the city. The article fails. The Detroit region itself is more populous and probably more prosperous than in the 1950s. The article is basically WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Much of the sources amount to media hype, a hold-over of outdated 1970s pessimism and fakery. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The notional revitalization has not prevented the city from bankruptcy and emergency management declared by the state governor. The story of revitalization should of course be told here but it cannot be a story ending in high-fives and champagne, not with the city in the terrible straits it is currently experiencing. Detroit is absolutely not "probably more prosperous than in the 1950s"—this is wishful thinking. The reliable sources describe a phenomenal downturn in vitality; they do not say that Detroit has taken some hits but is stronger than ever. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Chicago's deficits have been of the same proportion [1]. The city of Detroit, with its $1.1 billion budget, spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago. The city of Detroit's receives an estimated $800 to $900 million per year, enough revenue to spend as much person as Atlanta. An emergency manager is responsible action by the governor to deal with largess and public sector union contracts. The comprehensive study showed the city in mostly good condition. Your characterizations are inaccurate. Detroit has more advanced facilities than in the past in many areas. The Detroit area is more populous and probably more prosperous than in the 1950s. The auto industry is earning healthy profits. The article fails as noted above.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Pointing to Chicago will not change the issues faced by Detroit. And Chicago's budget problems are not part of a decades-long decline initiated by a too-close tie to the fading automobile industry, racism, white flight, mismanagement, etc. Chicago's future is not so grim as Detroit's.
You keep harping on a $1.1B budget in Detroit but that does not stop the bleeding. Somehow, the large budget did not prevent the governor from declaring an emergency and appointing a financial manager. The "mostly good condition" you assert is contradicted by the news articles I've seen and the books I've read. Whatever "advanced facilities" you are talking about is not made clear, but most observers assess Detroit as a net negative. The "Detroit area" is not what this article is about! In fact it is about the city of Detroit, not Dearborn or other neighboring areas. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Detroit doesn't have a revenue shortage from the reported totals it receives, it has had an excess spending problem. The comprehensive study commissioned for the city showed the city's housing is mostly good condition and it was reported by the Detroit Free Press, its disproves misperceptions [2]. These readings, books, you cite are much anecdotal opinion, not fact based. There have been major news reports of demolition of houses that no longer exist,[3] that your co called sources keep referring as though it didn't happen, likely to get media ratings. You don't seem to know what's in the city, yet you claim to be able to have an opinion about it based on selected sources with biased opinions. The Detroit Free Press read the comprehensive study and called it good news. You must have missed all the hefty renovations of the Renaissance Center, the Riverfront, major historic restorations, the casino resorts, the stadiums and entertainment complexes, the advanced steel manufacturing, the Chrysler facilities in the city, reports of leading high tech job growth, a robust auto industry with record profits, multi billions in revitalizations and investment, etc. Detroit is the major city of a major U.S. metropolitan and should not and cannot appropriately be discussed in a vacuum apart from its surrounding area. Readers look to the main article for an overall viewpoint of the area and you seem to be pushing to create a false impression of the city and area as a whole. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So Who you working for?

"look to the main article for an overall viewpoint of the area" No they don't they read the Detroit article to learn about Detroit. Why would it be otherwise? Rmhermen (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was "Consensus is to not merge". Hello32020

Now that there's a separate page on Detroit's bankruptcy, I think it should be merged with this page, then rename the page Decline and bankruptcy of Detroit. Having two separate pages is redundant. Thoughts? Jgera5 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. What that title would imply is that bankruptcy is the ultimate culmination of the city's decline, which it isn't. You could have places decline without going bankrupt, like Bodie, California, and others going bankrupt without so much a decline to speak of, such as Orange County, California. Best to keep them separate, or if the bankruptcy is really deemed not notable enough for its own article, merge into Decline of Detroit without changing the title. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with merging Detroit bankruptcy to Decline of Detroit, but not the rename to Decline and bankruptcy of Detroit. My feeling is that this title conveys a sense of finality or inevitability, where the truth is that the bankruptcy is merely an event within the decline. Abductive (reasoning) 04:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the section is already large enough it would end up being separated out. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bankruptcy is one specific discrete event and probably deserves its own article (although that might be recentism rearing its head.) But either way, either it deserves its own article or it doesn't; I don't think that this article should be rewritten around it, since this is an article about the broader decline over many decades, of which the bankruptcy is just one small event. --Aquillion (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The decline is a much wider trend that could not be covered in a bankruptcy article, and as the first bankruptcy of a US city even remotely close to Detroit's size, the bankruptcy absolutely has sufficient notability to deserve its own article. —Lowellian (reply) 07:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bankruptcy represents a tightly-circumscribed legal proceeding that is a consequence of Detroit's decline and will have a shorter-term narrative of its own, while this article is about a longer-term historical trend (which has had, and will continue to have, many other consequences).--Dwcasper (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both topics are quite notable on their own: longterm decline and July 2013 bankruptcy declaration. Of course each article should briefly discuss the other one, since they are related. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • neutral the two are separate entities so should be separate. The decline of a city as a page is unprecedented and perhaps not in line with NPOV. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bankruptcy of a city is a separate subject. Decline of a city is not in line with NPOV.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As other have noted it is really two seperate topics. In addition both articles have decent length, merging the two will create an article that is too long, and fro which we would have to spin something out. 176.11.247.142 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As two separate topics. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Binksternet and others; It is obvious that the two are related, but I think that ultimately there will be enough distinct information to appropriately populate both pages. As to the NPOV concerns about the word "Decline", I am not entirely opposed to the use of that word in the title of the article, but if someone has a better phrase, I would be interested in hearing about it. KConWiki (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the most important public-entity bankruptcy case since the adoption of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Critically important legal questions, such as the clash between state-constitution vested pension rights and the general bankruptcy policy of modifiability of most debts, will likely be fought out here. The battle has already begun, with the attempted end-run around the bankruptcy court by retiree organizations in Michigan state court. This case will very likely have lasting significance for the development of Chapter 9 law. It definitely deserves its own article. (If later events suggest otherwise, we can always revise later.) --Pechmerle (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manufacturing decline

It is often mentioned that manufacturing jobs have been lost but are there any available statistics like exports or a GDP for the city? Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Unpaid property tax

The part about unpaid property tax is wrong. The old text said "Detroit’s unpaid property taxes totaled $17.6 million in 2012" and the new text says "more than half of Detroit property owners did not pay taxes in 2012, at a loss of $246.5 million to the city." These are two different things. The first number is the amount of tax billed but not paid during calendar year 2011 (the source got the year wrong; the number came from [4]). The second number is cumulative, and reflects taxes billed over all time but unpaid as of 2012. And even that is wrong, Detroit's share of that is $131 million, the rest being owed to Wayne County and other units. Someone should fix this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Detroit → Changing demographics of Detroit – Some editors have suggested that the word "decline" (without further context) is not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Oppose. I have looked at numerous sources to determine which title would be best for this article, and my conclusion after seeing the word "decline" repeated so often in association with Detroit's notable troubles, is that "Decline of Detroit" is the most succinct and relevant choice. Please see previous discussions at Talk:Detroit,_Michigan/archive6#Decline_of_Detroit_Section (the initial conversation which led to this article), Talk:Detroit,_Michigan/archive6#Decline_of_Detroit which is a list of even earlier discussions, and Talk:Detroit#Decline which continues the discussion in light of this new article dedicated to the topic. There is also this article's talk page which is still viewable above. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose. A desperate attempt by some wikipedians to mask the truth and wrap it in a nice sounding name. But even here they've failed, all the proposed names sound ridiculous and don't accurately describe the problem.--Kohelet (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the discussion above. Essentially, the current title is well ref'd to reliable sources and is objective. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless Detroit somehow rebounds and reverse its population losses, the current article title is appropriate. Most of the rest of the Rust Belt has appeared to have leveled off its population losses--in the case of Pittsburgh, it's actually starting to gain population again--while Detroit continues to bleed residents. Even Youngstown, Ohio, which is often compared to Detroit on a much smaller scale, is showing signs of life due to activity involving the Marcellus Formation. Until Detroit appears to have leveled off and at least have stagnant growth like the rest of the Rust Belt, the city is in a decline. I'm not saying Detroit is becoming a ghost town--Alexandria in Egypt declined in the Middle Ages to the point that it had less than 5,000 residents in the early 19th century, but has since rebounded to having over 4 million people--but right now, the title is appropriate. Jgera5 (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Change of opinion I do think it should be renamed now, but to Decline and bankruptcy of Detroit. Since the city has now filed for bankruptcy and there is already a separate article on it, I think they should be merged together. See my merger proposal below. Jgera5 (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article does not cover the change in demographics when Ford set up his factories there. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The neutral truth does not always sound nice. The fact is that in almost all ways Detroit is in a state of decline, and this is backed up by reliable sources. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The demographics of any large city are always changing. This article is a lot more specific and narrowly focused than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 July 2013‎
  • Oppose As User:Philpill691 said, "the neutral truth does not always sound nice". —Lowellian (reply) 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per points made by Binksternet, Jgera5, and Philpill691. Altairisfar (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless the nominator can find tertiary sources that show that the "decline" is not happening. Abductive (reasoning) 01:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Detroit has declined, will continue to decline for the foreseeable future, and if we are lucky, may rebound to splendor later in the century. Its decline is not negated by a lot of positive things that have happened in Detroit since its decline has started. The article, now succinctly titled, should be allowed to stand. Obfuscating the facts with a bowdlerized title will only do disservice to the reader and to Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 01:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title of the article expresses a quantifiable historical fact, not a point of view, reflects standard terminology in documentary sources, and describes the topic it covers accurately and concisely.--Dwcasper (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-- The current title lacks neutrality and the article lacks neutrality/balance. Much is cut and paste from other articles, simply a barrage of negatives. This clearly is not neutral. Detroit and its surrounding area are similar in demographic and scope to Atlanta (Detroit has a higher population density than Atlanta). Its disingenuous to compare the city to 1950s and expect that it would not spill over into its suburbs with the advent of modern freeways. The title gives the reader a false impression of the city and the area. Detroit is a major corporate center with state of art facilities, schools, a major university, more advanced than in the past. The city is on regional boards that did not exist in the past. The city has seen and continues to see a massive multi $ billion revitalization. Detroit is a growing source of high tech jobs and the city is noted by Brookings for its economic rebound.[5]. Detroit is among the top five cities in the U.S. for job growth.[6] Detroit photo essay of a world class city (we could most many cites with beautiful photos of the city of Detroit.[7]. The auto industry is seeing record profits. The comprehensive study showed the city of Detroit is mostly in good condition and this was reported by the Detroit Free Press, cited to disprove misperceptions [8]. The title change is neutral, and should be made. A neutral title as proposed allows for an encyclopedic approach to the topic. I favor the above suggestions, "Changing demographics of Detroit" or "Social history of Detroit in the 20th Century." Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's merge bankruptcy into this article. Detroit quite obviously is in a poorer state than it was several decades ago; it's the poster child for urban decay. "Changing demographics of Detroit" sounds like a whitewashing attempt, and it would be entirely reasonable for it to embrace all changes in the city's demographics, rather than just the ones during the last several decades. Cities, like anything else, either decline or improve or do both to the point that they're roughly on the same plain. Does anyone think that Detroit's better than or as good as it was in the immediate aftermath of World War II? If so, such a perspective is extremely rare and far outweighed by those who say that it's declined. Finally, note that this article is and should be about the city itself, rather than the metro area; what's happening in Southfield, Grosse Pointe Shores, or Hamtramck should only appear here as background information and shouldn't be considered reason to say that Detroit's rebounding or that it's never declined. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word decline best describes what has happened in Detroit, and is used by an endless multitude of reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to it being something that has been been going on for decades and thus showing an established pattern, well documented and sourced, it does not in any way, shape or form disrespect or void any individual or business that has made any improvement as someone argued in the POV discussion. Further, it does it preclude any innovative turnaround and eventual renaming in the future. Does the title suggest Detroit's change in a specific direction? Absolutely. Is it POV? No, it descibes the undisputable direction of that change. I have seen good sourced material directed toward revitalization efforts/proposals/studies and believe that material needs to be worked into the article. It is conspicuously missing in my opinion. Ken Tholke (talk)
  • Comment. There can be separate topic for the bankruptcy. Opinions about the word decline show its not a neutral term, its being used to ram a point a view, and foment excessive pessimism and negativity, its clearly a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Evidence cited above shows the private sector in the city is doing fine, and rebounding. Using headlines misleads readers about the area as whole, which is a major city within a major U.S. metropolitan area. It should neutral, the present title is not neutral. Sources have a bias and use headlines to sell news, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Timely news about the bankruptcy should not be used to justify a bias, and should not cause a rush to judgment about this article where the title and content lack neutrality/balance. Collectivism of sourcing that contains bias should not be used to violate the neutrality policy. The city takes in plenty and spends more than other cities per person. The city is not short of revenue per se, its spends too much on hefty union agreements and excess, has too much debt. Support moving the title of this article to a neutral on such as "Changing demographics of Detroit" or "Social history of Detroit in the 20th Century".Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
If we can have an article titled Decline of the Roman Empire, which takes its title from a seminal 1776 work, why can't we have one for Detroit, based on contemporary scholarship? Your proposed titles obfuscate the fact of Detroit's decline, and you build a strawman argument in the process about the metropolitan area centered on Detroit not having declined. It hasn't, as part of its blossoming is directly attributable to the decline of the major city at its center. This process is not unique to Detroit. Your proposed titles obfuscate the content of article and its central point. --Mareklug talk 02:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the word "Decline" isn't used that often in the titles for articles, there are several articles on Wikipedia titled "Criticisms of XYZ Inc". They aren't titled "Opinions and viewpoints of XYZ Inc" because the majority of the article are criticisms of that company from reputable sources. If there are sources showing how Detroit is recovering, there should be a section on that. Patken4 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Decline" is clearly the right word imo for what has happened to Detroit and Google searchers will immediately hit upon this article if the material lives at "Decline of Detroit" (it came up #3 on my search, right after "news for Decline of Detroit" and Detroit's Beautiful, Horrible Decline). We do a disservice to our readers if we move the material to "Changing demographics of Detroit" as it makes it harder for them to find it. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose. While the third suggestion has merit, "Decline" is just too useful a word to describe what is happening to Detroit. The title Economic downturn of Detroit might be used, but a good title is short and to the point, as the current title is. --Auric talk 10:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment- Have pointed out that studies have shown that media and so called scholarship often hold extreme or left-leaning bias [9][10][11] [12][13]. Media and so called scholars seek attention. Wikipedia not a newspaper, and not obligated to include bias. Claims that searches return a quantity of statements, titles, or headlines which include the bias, do not justify the bias. Media reporting on other media's WP:Coatrack, WP:SOAP, WP:Fancruft or WP:Cruftcruft does not make encyclopedic. Using headlines and titles to push a point of view clearly violates WP:NPOV neutrality policy. The suggested titles are neutral and allow for appropriate balance and coverage of the topic. The media has used the lead stories to create ratings, citing a media headline that supports the POV pushing is not neutral and its not encyclopedic. The city and its area have are gown more populous and probably more prosperous than in the 1950s, the city and its area constitute a major corporate center and major population center in the U.S. similar to Atlanta in demographic and scope, and such major areas of the U.S. should not be viewed as isolated from their respective area. Terms like 'decline' also mislead the reader who looks to the name like Detroit or Atlanta to learn about the entire area and creates misperceptions of the area as a whole, which has grown, has a growing, rebounding, private sector. The city of Detroit has accomplished or slated to accomplish most of its demolition, so its essentially past tense. The comprehensive study, cited previously, showed the city is mostly in good condition. The city's homeowner vacancy rate is 2.9%, in line with the national average. Brookings study has noted the city's rebound, and the city is a growing source of high tech jobs, cited previously. The auto industry is seeing record profits. The city itself has state of the art, more advanced facilities than in the past, Detroit Medical Center $1.5 B [14], major multi $ billion revitalizations that continue, very well maintained historic sites and landmarks [[15]], is a major corporate center (world class) [16], major research university, high tech manufacturing, R&D, casino resorts, its an entertainment hub, and much more that did not exist in the past, etc. The city is on regional boards today that did not exist in the past. The city recently announced another new investment of $650 M sports entertainment complex to complement its already world class entertainment complex. Its disingenuous and unrealistic to assume or expect that a major city would not spill over into its suburbs following the 1950s and the advent of freeways. Private sector business reacts to over-reaching government. The city has seen resurgent private sector investment in a big way. The comprehensive study has shown the city itself is mostly in good condition, its residents essentially have taken good care of the city. Terms like 'decline' and 'dangerous' are inappropriate, amount to weasel words and POV pushing, and do not permit a neutral presentation or discussion of the the topic. The titles proposed, 'Changing demographics in Detroit' and 'Social history of Detroit in the 20th century' are neutral and do allow for balanced and neutral presentation and are encyclopedic. More votes does not constitute a consensus at Wikipedia. Using the timely story of the bankruptcy should not used as a rush to judgment.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word "decline" fits what has been happening to the city over several decades. "Decline" also has the meaning of becoming smaller, fewer, less, or decreasing. See [17] This is also what is happening, in a planned way, too, via the mayor's bulldozing acres of urban blight.Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By any objective measure Detroit has experienced decline over the last half-century, and that is the precise subject matter of this article. We do not change titles to avoid offending people or painting a negative image, and there is nothing POV about that.--Xiaphias (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Literacy Levels: weakly supported section should go

The weight of the sources cited in this section seems to be that there isn't actually good evidence for the '47% functionally illiterate' statement. That being so, both the statement and the section seem to me to be prejudicial to the citizens of Detroit. Are Detroit schools worse than other big inner-city schools in this country? Are literacy levels in Detroit significantly different from other big American cities, or - adjusted for income levels - different from the country at large? I don't know the answers to those questions, but more to the point nothing in this section answers them either.

I propose to delete this section of the article, as inadequately supported, prejudicial, and POV. Discussion welcome. --Pechmerle (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to try to confirm some literacy numbers, but you beat me to it by removing the entire section. OK for now. :) Perhaps there is a need for subsections on Poverty and Unemployment. These are two major problems in Detroit. For unemployment, the BLS reports that Detroit has the highest unemployment rate (in a list of 50 U.S. cities), with a rate of 23%.[18] For poverty, see [19] and [20] --Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing particular about Detroit's citizens that caused Detroit's decline. The consensus view among reliable, non-racist sources is that heavy dependence on one industry, along with politics and white flight, doomed the city. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. I was merely saying that I was going to confirm (or not) those illiteracy rates. If, for example, the city of Detroit has the highest illiteracy rate among the top 50 cities in the U.S., then that's a "Problem" (literally, a subsection under the main Problems section). Just as two other Problems are the unemployment rate (which is the highest among the top 50 cities according to the U.S. BLS). And poverty, which news orgs have cited as being a problem, but I'd have to find harder evidence for this.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We should not be blaming the citizens of Detroit for their city's decline. As Abductive says, the larger picture is what observers are looking at. They lay the blame on the auto industry, capitalism, white flight, mismanagement of the city, and so on, but not on illiteracy. I see illiteracy as a symptom, not a cause of the decline. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure at all what illiteracy rates have to do with blaming citizens. Illiteracy was merely a subsection in the main Problems section.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Others above have mentioned many of the long-term problems plaguing Detroit. A major reason for its short-term financial crisis is that the Michigan state government dramatically cut the amount of revenue support the state provided to the city. I've seen this in other local governments, where you get a sudden shift in state fiscal policy, and the local entity's budget is just as suddenly made unworkable. --Pechmerle (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't find any sources making this connection. Can anyone else find any? Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw a news item mention of this sometime during the last week, but didn't make a note of the source. Have to see if I can find it again. --Pechmerle (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that make that connection.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130318/OPINION05/130318051/Inside-handshake-deal-state-haunts-Detroit-analysis-by-Bridge-Magazine- http://www.thenation.com/blog/175351/affront-democracy-steers-detroit-toward-austerity# http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/what-is-at-the-heart-of-of-the-money-fight-between-detroit-and-the-state http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/detroit_bankruptcy_handshake_d.htmlLance Friedman (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This conversation has gone completely off the rails.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Reporting poor literacy scores in no way suggests that Detroiters are responsible for the situation there; literacy is a measure of education and ultimately social wellbeing. If literacy rates are low (I don't know if they are), that simply suggests that the educational system in Detroit has collapsed, which is certainly plausible. -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Darouet, you have touched on an underlying issue with this whole "Problems" section of the article. Is it about the causes of the decline? I think we would all agree that the movement of auto manufacturing away from Detroit was a major cause. Or, is it about the consequences of the decline? Again, I think we would probably all agree that the high poverty level has been a consequence of the decline (fewer good jobs available when the factories left). But when it comes to crime levels, or literacy levels, we hit troublesome ambiguity. Is Detroit in decline because it has high crime, or does it have high crime because it is in decline? When it comes to literacy levels, the sources that were cited showed that we don't even know (from the sources that were cited) with any degree of accuracy what the literacy level is. A consensus (as I interpret it) developed to take out the literacy levels subsection primarily because it's chief "fact," the 47% figure, was discredited by the other sources cited. Back to more broadly: I think the Problems section is troublesome overall because it mixes probable causes, probable consequences, and things that are not clearly one or the other, with no real encyclopedic rationale given for including such a mix in one section. My 1 1/2 cents. --Pechmerle (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Pechmerle. I think your inclinations are right: objective factors like relocation of industry (part of a global phenomenon that hit Detroit especially hard) led to social decline, resulting in poverty, crime, etc. I'm looking up a few books on the subject and, if I have time, I'll try to help others sort this out on the page. -Darouet (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

POV title

As was mentioned in a recent Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents thread, "Decline of Detroit" is a POV title. History of Detroit would be completely neutral, Social history of Detroit in the 20th Century, Changing demographics of Detroit, etc. might be workable. The essence is depopulation, deindustrialization, a rise in unemployment and crime rates. These are all negative trends, but "Decline of Detroit" is a POV phrasing, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see from the blue link above that this page forks History of Detroit#Postwar era... Carrite (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree neutral title would also likely improve the article content so Decline of should go, per discussion at [21] Section 4. In looking into this, although there have been many cities that have declined and even disappeared over the millennia, this appears to be the only article entitled Decline of [City], which further suggests it is POV pushing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
As you can see in the above Talk:Decline_of_Detroit#Sources_to_draw_from, the words "decline" and "Detroit" are widely paired when people discuss this topic. I believe the title is perfectly apt.
At Google Scholar, the various papers about the topic include "Planning and industrial decline lessons from postwar Detroit", "From Motown to No Town: Detroit and the Decline of the Post-industrial City", "Within-city variation in urban decline: the case of Detroit", "Japan or Bust?:(Multi) National Threats and the Decline of Detroit in Ron Howard's Gung Ho" and "The greening of Detroit, 1975–1992: physical effects of decline". JF McDonald writes in an Urban Studies article, "The relative decline (and in many cities, including Detroit, absolute decline) of central business district (CBD) retail sales..." In "Did the Death of Distance Hurt Detroit and Help New York?", EL Glaeser writes, "This paper advances the hypothesis that improvements in transportation and communication technology can explain both the decline of Detroit and the reinvigoration of Manhattan." In "Reimagining Detroit", P Eisinger writes, "In thinking about this trajectory of decline, Detroit has long been Exhibit A, or as the Washington Post once put it, 'the nation's preeminent urban basket case'..." In "Life in the Ruins of Detroit", B McGraw writes about the "decline of Detroit" having several identifiable origins.
This article is not about the general history of Detroit, it is about the post-war decline of Detroit – a topic that has received much attention by itself. This decline also defines the present status of Detroit, so relegating it to a history article is wrong. As well, it would be wrong to cast the problem in purely demographic terms, because external economic forces and internal mismanagement had a significant effect. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing POV about the title. It's a simple and unfortunate fact that Detroit declined in a spectacular way after the war, from one of America's most vibrant cities to one of it's very worst, and it's very well documented. In fact, it is the premier example of urban decay in the US, and is mentioned prominently as such in just about undergrad and graduate textbook on urban planning as such. Anyone arguing otherwise would be holding an extreme fringe point of view. The present title is neutral and does not need to be changed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The current title is not neutral and clearly not encyclopedic. The article needs a neutral title as noted above, "Demographic change in Detroit" would do, the other suggestions look good, "Social history of Detroit in the 20th century" is ok as well. The content of the article also is slanted, and lacks neutrality. Many cities changed with suburbanization and freeways. The region is more populous and probably more prosperous than in 1950s. The region expanded in a spectacular way in the post war era. The city of Detroit itself has great neighborhoods, wonderful facilities, and is regional hub for entertainment. The city is a partner in a larger region and part of regional boards that did not exist in the past. Detroit's demographics and patterns are similar to Atlanta, for example, but Detroit has a much high population density than Atlanta. The Detroit Free Press notes that most of the housing in good condition, with the comprehensive study recommending only 1% for demolition, the blight theory fails. The city itself has state of the art facilities, a major university, has seen and continues too see $ billions in revitalizations, a $500 million bond for new school construction, massive retooled Chrysler plant, massive retooled steel plant, etc. The city takes in a great deal of tax revenue from casinos, corporations, etc., and with no mention of how public sector union contracts cost the city's budget. The 2.9% home owner vacancy rates are in line with the national average, the 15% apartment vacancy rate is not untypical, and includes redeveloped high rises. During the post war period the region actually expanded. The title is basically WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack as is much of the article. Agree with Carrite above that the title seems to be POV pushing and needs to be changed. And its an outdated 70s style pessimism. Large portions are cut and paste, such as the crime section. The FBI has advised that's its crime data should not be used to construct comparisons using rates and the Criminology association has stated that such use of statistics is irresponsible, this is cited in the crime article, but this is being presented in wikipedia and is clearly not encyclopedic. 'Dangerous' is weasel word that should be removed. Municipal boundaries can distort rate comparisons, and claims of crime rates are not scientific and should be removed. The crime in the region has declined, just as it has nationwide. The article offers little.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You must be high on crack. The city will soon apply for bankruptcy. Dangerous is not a weasel word, since there are multiple lists ranking cities from most to least dangerous and the word is used as an adjective for referring to violent crime. The article clearly refers to the city of Detroit in its municipal boundaries, not the Detroit metropolitan area. And claims of crime rates are not scientific? What the hell?--Kohelet (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason why this article should host a POV tag or a POV title tag if there is no actionable complaint brought here. This title, Decline of Detroit, is supported by a great many of our reliable sources. It poses no particular threat as it stands. Of course, if someone were to suggest a new name by way of WP:Requested move, that would be fair play. I do not think it is fair to throw out suggested titles which do not apply to the whole of the problem, implicating only the social or demographic aspects when the big picture is much more complex. If there is no actionable suggestion here I will remove the tags in a few days. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Binksternet. There is apparently a wealth of RS, both news and academic, that supports this usage. It seems entirely objective, reasonable, and not POV. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
What academic source, or even non-academic source has been produced, entitled "Decline of Detroit"? None? It appears to the extent "decline" is in the news titles at all, it almost always refers to some other publication like a photo essay or book. Decline in an academic title appears to almost universally be given a more nuanced context. We are not writing News here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
You have created a straw man argument. Nobody here is saying that there is a single book or article which defines the concept of Detroit's phenomenal decrease in vitality. Instead, what we have here are dozens, perhaps hundreds of sources which describe an extreme downturn, a downfall, a decline, a city nearly ruined by external and internal factors. "Decline" is a summary of this information, the crux of it. This article is not only about demographics, not only about the failure of the American auto industry to stay modern and relevant in the 1970s and 1980s, not only about the misapplication of the power of labor unions, not only about racism and white flight, not only about the mismanagement of the city—it is about all of these things, and more. A very simple word is needed to tell the reader what the topic is, a word that does not pigeonhole the problem, a word that is immediately recognizable as defining the whole problem and not just part of it. What word do you suggest?
Let's go to the thesaurus and review some likely candidates:
  • Descent – too easily confused with losing altitude, not widely used in the reliable sources
  • Ruin – too extreme
  • Fall – too extreme
  • Failure – too extreme
  • Downfall – too extreme
  • Decay – too narrow, not true in light of vigorous economic activity
  • Urban decay – too narrow. Detroit's problem is bigger than the normal forms of urban decay.
  • Deterioration – too narrow, not just about architecture or infrastructure
  • Depreciation – too narrow, economic or aging aspects not the only factors
  • Diminishing – "decline" is shorter, better
  • Shrinking – not exactly the case, too easily confused with geographic size
  • Shriveling – yuck, "decline" is better
  • Receding – too easily confused with geographic size
  • Sinking – same as "descent"
  • Weakening – a possible choice
  • Crumbling – too narrow, not just about architecture and infrastructure
  • Withering – "decline" is better
  • Ebb – too poetic, sounds like the tide will bring Detroit back if we just wait.
This is why "decline" is the best word for the job. It is used in a great swath of reliable sources to describe Detroit's problems. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think Binksternet is right about the current article title and he has shared more than enough Reliable Source refs to support it. Demographics is just a part it and has problems. The first is that it doesn't take in the totality of "decline". The second is the sources support this title. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the POV tags from the article. Discussion here has gone on for ten days but nothing actionable has been raised. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is your opinion that there is nothing actionable and it is interesting that you fail to address the most commonly suggested title change which is "Decline & Revitalization in Detroit"
Whether or not Snyder's hand-picked "emergency manager" pushes the city into bankruptcy, it doesn't negate the fact that Detroit has attracted tens of billions of dollars of development and you can't refuse to acknowledge the success of various people, businesses, & developments simply because you unreasonably suggest that if they are not solving all of Detroit's problems than they are failures Your chosen title is a sweepingly insulting generalization of a huge city.
Also, as far as sources go, you are pretty selective about which ones you choose to include, a look at the history of various Detroit articles shows that you delete sources that don't support your point of view, such as below:
"The city seen a series of $6 billion in revitalizations and real estate developments in Downtown, Midtown, New Center, Woodbridge, Eastern Market, LafayettePark, Rivertown, and Corktown from 2006 to 2012.[1][2][3]"
Below are some more sources on media bias, and other issues that might help give this article more balance. Anyone can a find a lot more out there.

http://www.alternet.org/story/156137/detroit_as_a_food_desert_--_another_urban_myth http://www2.metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13829 http://www.michronicleonline.com/index.php/local/prime-politics/687-calling-out-the-dateline-nbc-hatchet-job-on-detroit?limitstart=0 http://metrotimes.com/news/news-hits/detroit-in-the-news-1.1496848?fb_source=aggregation&fb_action_ids=372031332909139&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582&fb_ref=.Uad9iC9GNgk.send http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/03/detroits-new-bankster-plutocracy/ http://www.buzzfeed.com/tombellino/10-reasons-why-detroit-will-prove-critics-wrong-a104

The current title of this article is a heavy-handed POV conclusion that is simply not accurate. As i have said before, the title wrongly implies that there has been no new building restorations, no new auto plants built, no new business moving into Detroit, no new buildings constructed and that crime just goes higher and higher. The title is particularly insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people who have built & maintained successful homes and businesses in the city. It says to them you don't count and certain kinds of people want to choose to pretend you don't exist. My suggestions for a new title is "Decline & Revitalization" or "Decline Versus Revitalization"
It also needs to be said ,that there is a a lot of misquoting of sources & misuse of sources in this article. One example of misquoting of sources is right in the beginning of the " population decline section, where it incorrectly states "only" St. Louis & Youngstown have seen declines of 60% or more. The sources listed in this paragraph do not say that. Also, I should add that lots of rural counties have also seen larger population declines than Detroit, with 3 rural counties in Texas losing more than 80% of their population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plains Lance Friedman (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"Revitalization" cannot be any part of the title. The city is on the brink of disaster because of a remarkable decline over the last few decades. The various revitalization efforts have made small gains but the surrounding losses outweigh them, by far. I don't care how many dollars are spent on revitalization if the net result is decline. Show me a consensus of sources that agree Detroit has corrected its downward spiral, and then we can put "revitalization" into the title. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As the proponents of Decline of Detroit admit above, they are not following the titling precedents of scholarly works. Therefore, an actually neutral title needs to be be chosen, per WP:NPOV: "Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.' " (emphasis added) The evident POV as shown by the examples given by Lance Friedman make this clear -- the present title is a particular side of an issue and a real and present danger to responsible article writing. As WP:NDESC policy requires such descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words." Multiple knowledgeable and experienced editors have pointed these principles out here and at AN/I - and are opposed to the current title. We don't do buzzwords and take sides -- we write reference works with non-judgmental titles -- and this issue is particularly acute when we are writing about current events. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your first sentence is wrong. I am indeed "following the titling precedents of scholarly works" as well as popular reliable sources. The method I am using is summary, not quote, except in the case of the chapter heading "Decline of Detroit" in David J. Phillips' 2008 USA in Decline. The exact phrase "decline of Detroit" is also found in the following sources:
  • After the Factory: Reinventing America's Industrial Small Cities, page 20
  • The Origins of the Urban Crisis, page 322
  • Who Killed Detroit?, page x
  • Human Geography: The Basics, page 96
  • Coleman Young and Detroit Politics, page 130
  • The Rise and Fall of an Urban School System: Detroit, 1907-81, page 409
  • A Model of Canadian and American Central City Vitality, page 179
  • Understanding the Global Economy, page 306
  • ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future, page 69
  • Stand on Zanzibar, page xi
  • Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal, page 251
  • The Power of a Promise: Education and Economic Renewal in Kalamazoo, page 85
  • Place-making and Policies for Competitive Cities, page 31
  • The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy, page 139
  • Casino Gaming in the United States: A Research Guide, page 201
  • Battleground: Government and Politics, page 410
  • Agglomeration Economics, page 304
  • Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer..., page 349
  • Lexus: The Relentless Pursuit, page 12
  • Rich Democracies, Poor People : How Politics Explain Poverty, page 147
  • The Evolution of Great World Cities, page 194
  • Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, page 171
  • Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion, page 20
...and so on, et cetera. There are so many instances of this exact phrase in reliable sources that it isn't funny. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Reinforcing the fact that this article title does not follow scholarly article titling precedents, with a list of sources that do not use that title does nothing to help your case, quite the opposite. That a phrase appears within works (not as the title) shows that it is a phrase that scholars have determined needs context to be useful, at all. Your comment further demonstrates that this title is not in compliance with Wikipedia policies on descriptive titles, quoted above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:POVTITLE, you have not shown that "Decline of Detroit" is not a neutral title. You have not suggested any good alternatives. I have shown that the phrase "Decline of Detroit" is used by many reliable sources. It meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Article titles because it is concise, it is immediately recognizable, it is a natural phrase for people who are looking for the topic, it consistent with scholarship in the field, and it "is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."
If you honestly have a better suggestion, start a WP:Requested move. That will demonstrate the difference between an actionable alternative and "I don't like it". Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral titles have been suggested. At least two good suggestions for changing the title were given above, "Demographic change in Detroit" and "Social history of Detroit in the 20th century." The WP:POVTITLE favors neutral titles and that is what was suggested. Lance and Alan Scott Walker point this out. It title lacks neutrality. The article title and much of the content amount to WP:Fancruft, WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. The city of Detroit spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago and the city of Detroit receives plenty of revenue to balance its budget and still spend as much per person as Atlanta. Chicago's deficits have been of the same proportion. Deletion of the article may be an option, the article cuts and pastes or collects negative information from other articles, showing a lack of balance. Crime section is a cut and paste. The crime rankings are not scientific and weasel words like 'dangerous' should not be used.[22].Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There you go with your useless links to unrelated guidelines: WP:Fancruft, WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. Also you are back to the Atlanta synthesis, and now Chicago, neither of which has a bearing on this issue. If you think this article should be deleted, then put your back into it and nominate it for deletion—but don't be surprised at a "speedy keep" result. Your crime section complaint is supported by a link to a public relations announcement in prnewswire.com? Not reliable.
The only relevant points you have made are that POVTITLE calls for neutral titles, and that "good suggestions" were made in the form of "Demographic change in Detroit" and "Social history of Detroit in the 20th century."
  • WP:POVTITLE: "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors."
As you can see from the list of reliable sources I have brought forward, the title "Decline of Detroit" is used by a great many sources.
If you initiate a WP:Requested move to suggest either "Demographic change in Detroit" or "Social history of Detroit in the 20th century", you will have a hard uphill battle trying to prove either of these is used much more often than "decline of Detroit". Not one editor here has pointed to reliable sources in an attempt to show that either of these titles is better than "Decline of Detroit". Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Your comment suggests you misunderstand name: Detroit is a name. Detroit Redwing's is a name. Lake Michigan is a name. Fred is a name. "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are names. "Decline of Detroit" is not a name. As used here, it is a Descriptive Title , which you have plainly made clear by your list of things to cover. Descriptive titles, must comply with WP:POVNAMING: "Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. " (emphasis added) The evident POV as shown by the examples given by Lance Friedman make this clear -- the present title is a particular side of an issue and a real and present danger to responsible article writing. As WP:NDESC policy requires such descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words."
Wanting this POV title Decline of Detroit to show-up in google, as the only scholarly reference work useing that title is just not good enough. All other title considerations (including style) defer to NPOV, because it is a Pillar. Multiple other suggestions have been made, above, including one that uses "decline" with more context, so digging in heals for ONLY this title that multiple good faith editors object to as POV is not the way forward, see WP:CONSENSUS. It cannot possibly be the only title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
All very good arguments, and well expressed. It comes down to whether you think "decline" is pushing a point of view. I have rarely agreed with Binksternet but here I believe he is correct. Objectively there has been a "decline" in Detroit. This decline is measurable in any (all?) metrics one would care to name, not just population and demographics. The RS refs presented support the title. Moreover, even if there were already a revival in Detroit that wouldn't invalidate this article or its content. It would neccesitate, initially, addition of a section on the "end of the decline" or perhaps "signs of revival", but it wouldn't obviate the need for an article on the decline. If, in fact, Detroit were to have a vast and well-documented "Revival" that would ultimately require its own complimentary article. "Decline" is not the same as "criticism" per WP:POVNAMING. That is a bridge too far. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Please read WP:NPOVVIEW for why we do not spilt articles, as you suggest. Your statement is an evident point of view. Other published sources look at the issue from a different point of view. Our articles cover various points of view in the same article. Our article "descriptive titles" promote covering various points of view. So, the descriptive title using 'decline' without other context of a thing that is happening now cannot be NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the policy. I have not proposed "splitting" anything. The decline is a significant distinct occurence in a distinct period in time, as such it should have its own article. The Roman Empire has an article, there is also a Decline of the Roman Empire, it seems an apt comparison to me (and yes I understand other stuff exists). Ultimately, we have solid, reliable sources for this construction. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Not one scholarly source has been produced that uses this title. Moreover, there are no articles entitled Decline of [City] on wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of Reliable Sources at the top of this page. Wikipedia most often uses a wide variety of reliable sources some of those are academic most are not. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
And, as noted none of the scholarly sources use that as their title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There are scholarly works called Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories? Should we rename that Views on Barack Obama's religion? --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is a name for a type of theory, whereas, decline is not a name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Detroit has suffered a real decline, an endless number of sources describe that decline, and this article summarizes them. To state that the title violates neutrality suggests that the decline isn't real: that is clearly false. Some might even argue that it's offensive to editors trying to describe the world in objective terms, or to people who've had to live through that decline. Blinksternet has provided plenty of sources demonstrating the validity of this page's name, and common sense, in addition to those sources, strongly argue for an encyclopedia entry on Detroit's notable decline. -Darouet (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. You keep insisting a "scholarly work" has to have the same name as an article title. That, plainly, is not true. --NeilN talk to me 01:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
No. You're missing the point. This title is unprecedented as a title of scholarly work, which is what we do here. It's unprecedented on the Pedia (there are no Decline of [City] articles). It is a descriptive title, and therefore must be neutral (WP:POVNAMING), in order to promote responsible article writing and not the POV we see here regularly being pushed in this article about the present political hobby horse. The Pedia is not suppose to be used that way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is a book with a chapter title, "Decline of Detroit:"
And here another book specifically about the decline of Detroit:
Or two with decidedly more dramatic titles:
This book has a special section titled "The Decline of Detroit:"
As has been mentioned above, the phrase "Decline of Detroit" is used in countless books, journal and newspaper articles. I don't agree that these show that specific context is needed: quite the opposite.
The guidelines you are referencing, Alanscottwalker, ask that titles be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent (these are goals, not rules). The title "Decline of Detroit" easily satisfies the first four characteristics; if you speak to almost anybody in the United States about the decline of Detroit, they will immediately know what you're talking about. As for the fifth characteristic, consistency, Detroit's spectacular decline (documented in the article) make it a peculiar case, which is why this article exists.
While I understand that you feel the name "Decline of Detroit" is somehow non-neutral or sensationalistic (as in articles incorrectly using the term "massacre" or "scandal"), in this case, there is nothing controversial about the fact that Detroit suffered a tremendous decline. Now, to argue that it has not would certainly be controversial.
The vote to move the article, below, clearly shows that the wikipedia community views this in a straightforward manner, and in this context the NPOV tag isn't justified. More worthwhile, probably, would be a contribution of scholarly or well sourced material arguing that Detroit's history and situation is actually analogous to many other cities, or that it has experienced a limited revival, etc. -Darouet (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You give multiple sources (scholarly and not) that do not use this as the title and that tells us that they don't use this as their title. They use it in the context of their body, and that tells us they use it in context. For scholarly sources, what is that scholarly context? It's in the context of general and specific urban history and current events. It may have some to do with anti-sensationalistic (and anti-political), but it really has to do with promoting neutral articles. And NPOV takes precedence over any guideline. Many cities have declined: Rome being perhaps the most prominent example in western history (and it has never been the 'center of the world' again), Manchester, Liverpool, and on and on but there is no article "Decline of [City]", not even "Decline of Rome" which is covered if covered at all in the context of its "Empire", or in the context of its "History", except for this. This just happens to be a point in history that is also current, but history is long, and the long view (or more precisely the scholarly, detached, and contextual view) is what the Pedia seeks to promote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The requested move vote, below, provides many additional views on the merit of the title. -Darouet (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A further note: We have a host of articles titled "Corruption in..." which are accurate titles given the article subject matter. --NeilN talk to me 14:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Automobile industry / views of Richard Wolff

An editor noted that Richard Wolff, who is cited at some length in the section on the decline of the automobile industry in Detroit, writes from a Marxist perspective. I've refined that to Neo-Marxist, based on distinctions Wolff himself makes on his academic web sites, between his work and classical Marxist economics.

The broader issue, though, is that our discussion of the auto manufacturing decline in Detroit comes from a source -- an opinion piece in the Guardian -- that is itself not an academic study and is somewhat out of the mainstream. It would be better if a wider range of sources could be cited on the move of auto manufacturing out of Detroit. Perhaps better yet would be a source that supports the basic facts of automotive manufacturing decline, job loss, income decline, etc., without declaring it all to be a capitalist plot, or the fault of greedy unions, or whatever. --Pechmerle (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. (I was only going by the label found here) I agree a wider range of sources is needed. If the article includes the opinion of someone very left-of-center (by American political standards), there needs to be a right-of-center perspective included as well. Or better yet, as you've already mentioned, we could rely on sources that report basic facts without a possible agenda. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the NYT piece. --Pechmerle (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are to keep the opinion of a neo-Marxist in this article then it is absolutely necessary to provide differing opinions in the same section per WP:NPOV. To have such an extreme position as the main opinion represented in a section is unacceptable and inexcusable. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's an overreaction, I think. The neo-Marxist, Wolff, is a scholar, not Satan. He has researched the topic and is sharing his conclusions. You are welcome to introduce the same sort of research conclusions from a scholar who comes from a different background, to serve as balance. The article would benefit from multiple sources describing the effect of the automotive industry on Detroit over the last few decades. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have some sympathy for Philpill's point. True, Wolff is not Satan. But also, what is cited by Wolff is not his academic scholarship, with appropriate research citations, but an opinion piece in the Guardian, with no research citations at all. We could easily load this article up with opinion piece citations from all over the political spectrum, from left of Wolff [I saw a pretty rabid one about the decline of Detroit in a Trotskyite source] to far right [I have also seen quite rabid ones on the far right]. That wouldn't improve this article. What it needs are more source citations from 'research conclusions from scholars.' Digging those up, particularly on line, is not easy though. And with a topic this broad, keeping the citations divided into a majority view and minority view would be a further challenge. --Pechmerle (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I like the Wolff quote because it is timely and on-topic. When I added it the article had nothing about the automotive industry, so it needed something desperately. Of course we should add more references, more facts and even more opinions, if they are appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, I'm not faulting you for citing the Wolff piece as a start on this topic (and of course I didn't know it was you who edited that into the article). I do think that some of the bits from his piece are rather over the top, such as the sweeping abstraction "capitalism was responsible for the city's deep decline." But I've done some online rummaging, and started to come up with some more academic sources on the role of the auto industry in Detroit's decline. I'll try to substitute in citations to those as I get time. (Probably take several days to get to it.) --Pechmerle (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, the second paragraph in this section, about annexation, doesn't seem like it belongs here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right about the placement of that topic. It's important, but needs to be better located in the article. --Pechmerle (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Marxist blatant POV pushing

I removed the following section:

Neo-Marxist economist Richard D. Wolff writes that Detroit's automobile industry failures in the global economy are a major factor in Detroit's decline. He says that the car companies failed to anticipate changing consumer requirements in the 1970s, and that they sought ways to undermine gains made by the Detroit-based labor force, represented by the United Automobile Workers union. Automobile company leadership (shareholders and directors) decided to move production away from Detroit because of lower wages found elsewhere; this critically hurt Detroit. Wolff writes that US auto worker wages have not increased in real buying power since the 1970s, but that production has increased, yielding greater profits which are not shared with the worker. In 2007, the union accepted wage cuts, adopting a two-tier system. During the global automotive industry crisis of 2008–10, the US government gave $17.4 billion to Chrysler and General Motors to bail them out, but the city of Detroit was not similarly aided. Wolff says that Detroit served as a success story for capitalism in the 1950s and '60s, but in the next four decades, capitalism contributed to the city's deep decline.[4]

Totally inappropriate POV pushing and anti-capitalist propaganda with a discredited source, put to the top of the page for some reason. These are not within the economic mainstream. I believe that it's fine to have articles on heterodox schools of economics on Wikipedia. But on subjects such as these, just stick to the facts. 203.110.235.6 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored the text, cited as it is to a respected scholar. Wolff is telling about his analysis of facts here, not his eccentric opinions. If you would like to temper Wolff, find some other scholar who disagrees with this analysis or these facts, and bring that person into the mix. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Bink that the solution is not to remove Wolff, but to add balance. Another user was working on that (see previous section on this talk page). Also I disagree that we should "just stick to the facts." Decline of Detroit is a complicated subject, there are many causes, and analysis is needed to understand it. Analysis by economists seems very useful here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The better, more balanced, and much more complete analysis of factors for Detroit's decline I was seeking is found in a series of excellent investigative articles by the Detroit Free Press done after the Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing. Haven't found time to work their points in here yet. --Pechmerle (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, Wolff is not a respected scholar especially on economic matters. Virtually no serious economist takes this Marxist economics / heterodox economics stuff seriously. It is misleading in the extreme. You show this article to any respected economist, or even a random college professor of economics, and they'll probably laugh uncontrollably. I think a good analogy here would be like including some quotes from the Flat Earth Society in the main body of an article about astrophysics or Newtonian mechanics. It is not only wrong, it gives too much credibility to fringe groups and thus it misleads the reader.
The correct and widely-accepted explanation for the decline of Detroit from the automobile industry's perspective is that the lack of competitiveness, driven by poor marketing and high labour costs is what contributed to the decline of the city's industry.
You guys seem to be experienced editors, compared to me, but let me ask you a simple question: Are you going to follow the laws of wikipedia to the letter instead of honouring the spirit of these rules? Because having a fringe view listed near the top of the page, with no counter from established/mainstream sources, simply reduces the quality of the page overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.235.8 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
High labor costs did not kill Detroit. (I think racism did, to a large extent.) The unions did not kill Detroit.[23] American customers would have paid a premium for premium-built cars if Detroit had built the cars that they wanted. However, the auto industry based in Detroit was too slow to adapt to the market, starting with the oil crisis in the 1970s. Wolff is correct in his evaluation of what could have been done differently with the profits seen by the Big Three carmakers—they could have been reinvested in the plant to pay for the changes demanded by the consumer. Instead the profits were siphoned off the top, taken out of Detroit proper. The cars were not very good, and Detroit was beaten by better cars from Europe and Japan. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Debating the issues is beside the point; it's not our role here. The point is to locate and add some additional good sources for the role of the auto industry in Detroit's decline. I've seen some (Detroit Free Press in-depth piece, and another academic economist, at a Michigan institution). It takes effort to do the necessary editing. I intend to do it, but am swamped with my day job at the moment. --Pechmerle (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The claims in Binksternet's link are debatable at best. Personally I would lean to laughable. Hopefully we can find some better ones. Rmhermen (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that Wolff et al are leaning towards laughable. That's why I don't think it even merits the discussion in this article. The claims are very dubious and add no value to an uninformed reader. 203.110.235.7 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If Wolff really is that far off the mainstream I would change my opinion and say the material should be removed. This is the first I've heard him described as "fringe." Just looking over his résumé I don't see anything that indicates he's a quack, in fact he seems to be retired from a real university. And what he says doesn't sound like Wikipedia:Fringe theories to me. In any case I think it would be great if some of the material from the Detroit Free Press in-depth piece could be added. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1
Wolff is definitely considered "fringe" within economics. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics page, it says clearly that "instream economists sometimes assert that heterodox economics has little or no influence on the vast majority of academic economists in the English speaking world. Heterodox schools of economics are also usually dismissed as "fringe" and "irrelevant" by serious and prominent mainstream economists.[7]"
Neo-marxist economics is considered to be heterodox and fringe within mainstream economic circles.
Including it in here is not only POV pushing, but also detracts from overall quality of the article.
I don't care about debating the topic, I am not here to do that. I just glanced at this article a while ago and I saw this fringe opinion listed at the top of the page, and I just wanted to raise it and request deletion. In my opinion this would be an improvement. It's like I said, you wouldn't put Flat Earth Society views on physics near the top of the page, why Marxist economics? 203.110.235.135 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you've convinced me. I'd still be much happier if someone could add stuff from the Free Press piece, especially about the decline of the auto industry, which certainly had something to with the decline of Detroit. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the offending passage for the time being, I believe it should only be added back if there is substantial mainstream economics analysis offered on the page, as a rebuttal from a heterodox point of view.203.110.235.134 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the passage. We have a working consensus to add more material, not remove Wolff.
You know, Wolff is not as much of a fringe character as you might think. He has an hour-long radio program once a week on WBAI called "Economic Update". He was called "America's most prominent Marxist economist" by The New York Times Magazine, for what that's worth. He is a co-founder of the scholarly journal Rethinking Marxism. That is not a fringe person. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have already provided ample proof that Marxist economics is a heterodox school of economics that is not accepted by consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics so restoring the passage detracts from the overall quality of the article. The consensus on this talk page also favors removal. Here are quotes from other editors:
"The claims in Binksternet's link are debatable at best. Personally I would lean to laughable." - Rmhermen
"Ok, you've convinced me. I'd still be much happier if someone could add stuff from the Free Press piece..." - Kendall-K1
"The claims are very dubious and add no value to an uninformed reader." - myself
Please consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics
The fact that this neo-Marxist, fringe economist is awarded undue prominence in this article is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I am happy to seek dispute resolution if you continue to edit against the consensus on this talk page.203.110.235.8 (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Just because you convinced me doesn't mean you have consensus. I count at least two editors who don't think we should remove the material. Also, although I could go along with removal, my preference is still to add more mainstream analysis, and cut back Wolff to a sentence or two. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I counted one, Binksternet. Even if I don't have consensus, the academic consensus in mainstream economics should be worth something at least. By the way, I also think it a good idea for mainstream analysis to be given more prominence, whilst including fringe-types like Wolff as a rebuttal. That would be the basis for a decent article.203.110.235.8 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Wolff is not fringe, as I have said. Marxism is a minor viewpoint in economics but it is not fringe. If you are interested in telling the reader what is the academic consensus on this topic (and aren't we all), then please take some time to look for sources which give such analysis. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
IP 203 confuses Wolff and Forbes magazine, which are not at all the same thing. The Forbes magazine link is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/07/21/the-unions-didnt-bankrupt-detroit-but-great-american-cars-did/. This is the link that Rmhermen found laughable, debatable at best. Rmhermen dismissing one article in Forbes has nothing to do with Wolff, and adds nothing to whatever 'consensus' was imagined by IP 203. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You have not addressed why it would make good common sense to be giving undue prominence to someone who is not within the economic mainstream, when the article is partly economic in nature. 203.110.235.8 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Until you got the article locked down from your edit warring, there was nothing stopping you from adding viewpoints taken from mainstream economics. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, we really need someone to read and incorporate material from here: [24] If we spent as much time editing as we do arguing, the article would be in better shape. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with including more material, including Wolff. I just disagree with including Wolff, a Marxist/heterodox economist (clearly fringe, however Binksternet likes to arbitrarily redefine the boundaries of mainstream economics) at the top of the page whilst having no analysis by a mainstream, accepted economist.
If the view of the mainstream and academic consensus is included, then I see nothing wrong with including disagreements/rebuttals from fringe academics like Wolff. However, the page, before my removal of the offending material would have drawn instant laughter and ridicule from academia. People are dismissive enough about Wikipedia's reliability already, we should be making it better, not worse. 203.110.235.135 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Marxism is a minor viewpoint in American economics, not a fringe viewpoint. The value of Wolff is that he made a statement about Detroit soon after the bankruptcy, giving his analysis. Wolff is a vocal guy, and he was available when I saw that the article did not say anything about the automobile industry, which is of course critical to this topic. I used Wolff to start such a section, expecting others would add more material.
So what we do now is propose more material. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me like we have consensus here to add mainstream analysis and tone down, but not remove, Wolff. Maybe one of the editors who objects to Wolff would like to add the new material? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tonight I finally have some time to add new material from mainstream sources about the role of the auto industry in Detroit's decline. From Detroit Free Press investigative series, and a U. of Michigan academic study. So those edits will be coming tonight. I think they'll be an improvement, but we'll see what you all think. Regards. --Pechmerle (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lacey, Eric (February 18, 2013).Downtown Detroit (7.2 square miles) is more diverse, educated and wealthy than rest of city, report says.Mlive
  2. ^ "Detroit 7.2". Detroitsevenpointtwo.com. Retrieved 2013-03-29.
  3. ^ Experience Detroit revitalization
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_of_Detroit/Archive_1&oldid=1136655710"