Jump to content

Talk:Detroit/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Urban Farming

Does anyone else think it's high time the article starts covering this phenomenon? Not even the article I linked mentions Detroit, yet there has been significant media coverage over the fact that it is becoming huge in Detroit. Something we should consider for the future of this article perhaps?EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 19:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So far it has been mostly talk and planning. Little actual farming. Rmhermen (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Not from what I've heard. Even if so, the topic has already received a good amount of media attention. It's certainly notable enough for at least a brief paragraph. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Renaming historic districts

Hello all Detroit-interested Wikipedians! I am making an effort to rename many of the historic districts in Detroit that are not commonly referred to as XXX Historic District. (For example, the Greektown Historic District is nearly always referred to as simply Greektown.) For cases like this, I would like to remove Historic District from the article title per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, I would like to add the . . . , Detroit qualification onto the districts that have homonymous districts in other cities. Please direct your thoughts on this to Talk:Greektown Historic District, where I have posted a consolidated discussion. Thanks! Wikipedian77 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ruin porn

In response to an above comment by Thomas Paine1776, I would like to note that ruin porn is not at all related "such material" as newspaper and magazine articles which describe Detroit's phenomenal decline. Instead, it is a phrase describing beautiful photographs of ruined buildings such as can be found in Detroit and elsewhere. The topic of ruin porn is discussed in the following:

  • Greco, Joann (January 6, 2012). "The Psychology of Ruin Porn". The Atlantic Cities.
  • gjohnsit (June 2, 2013). "Ruin Porn: How foreigners see the United States". Daily Kos. Retrieved July 19, 2013.
  • Detroit Ruin Porn, Huffington Post search
  • Binelli, Mark (November 9, 2012). "How Detroit Became the World Capital of Staring at Abandoned Old Buildings". The New York Times. And in Detroit, you can't talk aesthetics without talking ruin porn, a term that has become increasingly familiar in the city. Detroiters, understandably, can get touchy about the way descriptions and photographs of ruined buildings have become the favorite Midwestern souvenirs of visiting reporters.
  • Mullins, Paul (August 19, 2012). "The Politics and Archaeology of 'Ruin Porn'". Archaeology and Material Culture. Retrieved July 19, 2013.
  • Brook, Pete (June 13, 2012). "Photos of Detroit Need to Move Beyond Ruin Porn". Wired.
  • Polter, Julie (2013). "Beyond 'Ruin Porn'". Sojourners. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Woodward, Richard B. (February 6, 2013). "Disaster Photography: When is Documentary Exploitation?". ArtNews.

This is worthy of a new topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of writing a new article about ruin porn, I found an existing article called ruins photography, written about the same topic. The phenomenon of Detroit being the so-called "capital" of ruins photography can be mentioned in the Detroit article. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should create you own blog. Wikipedia is not for a WP:Soapbox, or a WP:Coatrack for WP:Fancruft. The other articles your discussing are photography related, your discussion is off topic and not relevant.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw a funny t-shirt once. It said, "More people have read this t-shirt than your blog." I'm not the blogging type, but thanks for the suggestion. Have fun with your Fancruft, your Soapbox, and your Coatrack. Sounds like a Hall Tree and a Shoe Polisher are in order. Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page name

Shouldn't it read "The city of Detroit" than the government of Detroit. Is it just the central civil authorities or the whole body of residents submitting to the bankruptcy? Tandrum (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the title of the article, the current title is "Detroit," which is fine. The Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy is styled "City of Detroit, Michigan." There's no need to change the title of the article. Famspear (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Great Plains decline

Professor Frank J. Popper and his wife compares the Great Plains decline with Detroit's. They say the Great Plains is experiencing rural decline while Detroit is the foremost example of urban decline. They suggest solutions for "smart decline" such as combining rural counties to eliminate some administrative overhead, and for Detroit they suggest a concentration of population, land banking the unsalvageable neighborhoods. See "Small Can Be Beautiful: Coming to Terms With Decline", Planning, July 2002, pp. 20–23. Deborah E. Popper and Frank J. Popper. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

And thus it would sit well in an article on theories of urban/rural decline but not here.Rsloch (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are labeling the Poppers comparison of Detroit & the Great Plains a "theory" ? You could just as easily call the web site story that compares Detroit & Youngstown a "theory"

At least Popper has expertise on the subject. The journalist that wrote Detroit/YT comparison lists none.

Do you want to delete them both? Lance Friedman (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As you have reinstated it perhaps you could explain its relevance to the history of Detroit. Rsloch (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The comparisons provide context & perspective. I am particularly against deleting the great plains comparison because Popper's academic expertise make him the most qualified to make such a comparison.Lance Friedman (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevance to the history of Detroit? It might sit better in another section but not the one it is in. Rsloch (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, this isn't the history section. This section is talking about such things as the decline in Detroit's population which is exactly what the article in Planning is talk about. So clearly an article discussing Detroit's population decline & how it compares to other areas is relevant to this section. Also, as i have already said before, the article provides context & perspective. Are we not supposed to provide context & perspective in a wikipedia article?Lance Friedman (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The format of the article goes, Section: History, subsection: Decline. We all make mistakes. Relevance to the history of Detroit? None provided. OK for me to removed the text?Rsloch (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As you might already know, this new section was fairly recently plopped down here from a different part of the article. It probably belongs back near the economics & demographics section.

In any case, how do you think the Detroit News article that talks about 2011 delinquent tax bills is more relevant to history than the Popper article from Planning which talks about the cities population decline? Are you saying that paragraph sourced by that Detroit News article should also be deleted from the section?

Using your logic, most of the section should be deleted or moved since virtually none of it has much relevance to history. Most of the section is sourced with news & current events articles concerning current economics & demographics in Detroit which are not historical topics. Do you believe the entire section should be deleted?

Or are you pointing out a mistake that may have been made in moving it from between economics & demographic to this new location and that it should be moved back to its old location?

Regardless of the sections current location, this part of this section is talking about the decline in Detroit's population. So clearly an article discussing Detroit's population decline & how it compares to other areas is relevant to this section.

Also, as i have already said before, the article provides context & perspective. Why do you think that you shouldn't provide context or perspective in the history section?Lance Friedman (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Context or perspective has to be relevant to the section it is placed in and be something other than a summary of someone's theory. I'm thus going to remove it and the Youngstown text. Rsloch (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you say an article that is talking about Detroit's population decline isn't relevant in a section that is talking about that specific topic? As far as your assertion that it is theory, so what? Even if it were "someones theory" as you claim, that isn't a reason for deleting it. Popper has noted expertise on the topic and his theories, writings, or whatever you want to label them are relevant to the topic of population decline & specifically discussing Detroit. Also, the population loss that has occurred in many rural counties isn't "theory", it is just fact. That sourced comparison by itself even without Popper article provides context & perspective relevant to the topic being discussed in the section. If anything should be deleted from this section and the main article, it is the Walter Williams source from the conservative Investors Daily. Not only is the article his "theories" - it is also an opinion/editorial that even that conservative publication choose to not place in their news section. Do you think that the Williams source should be deleted? Or are his "theories" more in line with your POV?Lance Friedman (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the section covered (and now does again) a period of Detroit's history. Population is dealt with elsewhere. As I have said before the material might warrant inclusion elsewhere but it is irrelevant to that section. I'm sure there are many theories about urban decline in the US that mention Detroit but none of them fit into a section on the city's history. Why the obsession with including that one theory? Not being omnipotent I may miss other material in an article that needs removing, that does not mean I agree with it. My only POV is that only relevant material should go into the article in the right place. Rsloch (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As i said before, this new section was only recently moved into the history section from another area of the article. This was a mistake. Most of the topics being discussed in the section are about current events involving demographic & economic issues which are not historical topics. For those reasons i turned this new "Decline" section back into an independent section. It is no longer part of the history section. Though even if this section still were part of the history section, comparing Detroit' past historical population trends with past historical populations trends of another place would not in any way be inappropriate for a history section.Lance Friedman (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your change stops the history at 2001 which is rather odd to say the least. The 'Decline' section carries on the city's history. It's not perfect but removing irrelevant material helps improve it. Rsloch (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, history does not stop. However, there is a difference between current events & history. Regardless, even if this section remains part of the history section, comparing Detroit' past historical population trends with past historical populations trends of another place is not in any way inappropriate for a history section.Lance Friedman (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Lance I leave it in your hands. I thought we were having a good discussion on a number of issues but apparently in someone else's eyes. Rsloch (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, well it has been over a week and no one cares enough about this subject to make a comment. Since Rsloch said he was leaving it in my hands, I am restoring the sourced comparison of Detroit & the Great Plains for the reasons discussed above.
On the unrelated topic of the decline section and the newest revitalization section. I am going to make them independent sections for the reasons discussed above.Lance Friedman (talk)
Your revitalization section was supported only by references that were five years old or older. This gave the impression that revitalization efforts were currently bearing fruit. Some more modern references should be found. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't my revitalization section. Someone else put it in the decline section. I just made the section independent. There is no expiration date on sources. Regardless, i'll take it upon myself to put it back in with more recent sources.Lance Friedman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Sources are removed (expired) all the time in science articles when the statements they source have been superseded by better research or other events. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
But you are not listing any sources that specifically say that the sourced information is no longer valid. Anyway, I added a bunch of recently sourced info to the stuff that the other person put in.Lance Friedman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And I've removed it. Sources from 2006-2007 cobbled together to give the impression that nothing has changed in last five-six years? Don't cherry-pick examples. Find neutral (i.e., not Detroit based) articles that talk about the revitalization. --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A Whole Foods appeared in the city! Woooo! (rolling eyes) --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed your copyright violation. --NeilN talk to me 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You could have just fixed the typo & put in the quotation marks, instead of deleting everything and trying to make it into some huge crime.
We don't build articles by copying sections from other sources and putting "in the quotation marks". And please learn to sign your posts (add --~~~~ to the end of them). Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems like you are trying to wiki-lawyer me to the death. Are you trying to say quoting a few sentences from a source is inappropriate on wikipedia?Lance Friedman (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE#Quotation_of_non-free_text - "Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source." (emphasis mine) --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Revitalization" section

I'm not sure when the "Revitalization" section was added to this article, but I must protest its inclusion.

The reason the "Decline" section was added was to give due weight to a very important aspect of Detroit. Unlike the decline of Detroit, which is a very real trend which has been widely discussed and studied over the last few decades, the "revitalization of Detroit" is entirely fictional; by any measure, Detroit is currently in the worst condition it has ever been in, and there is no reason to believe things are going to turn around any time soon. The addition of a "Revitalization" section seems to be an attempt to downplay the severity of Detroit's decline by piling together isolated stories about the few and isolated positive developments which have occurred in the city in recent years together, to make it seem like Detroit is now on the upswing, in a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.

It is for this reason that I propose the removal of the "Revitalization" section, and the merging of any content notable enough to remain in this article into the "Postwar era" subsection of the "History" section. Information in the current "Revitalization" section which is not notable enough to be included in this article (which I think includes most of the content) should be completely removed. Thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "Revitalization" section presents a problem with undue weight. Any worthwhile material in the section should be moved out and presented elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
If nobody objects, then I will remove the section in question. What information, if any, should be kept and moved to the end of the history section? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Certainly all the Curbed Detroit references and text can be removed, as that is a Vox blog. Perhaps if the section is retitled "Continuing business activity" or similar then it would make sense to keep the biggest national stories but without the superlatives and hyperbole. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of retitling the section. --NeilN talk to me 00:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The information in the section is nowhere near notable enough for its own section. Any notable information involving recent business activity should be placed in either the "Economy" section or the "History" section. All non-notable information should of course be removed. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

>> Detroit Suburbs Devise Ways to Dodge Takeovers as Decay Widens>> Detroit Retirees Ask Bankruptcy Judge to Save Benefits (Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Climate averages in weather box not according to source?

I've noticed that Guardian of the Rings (talk) has changed out some of the numbers on average temperatures, Precipitation, snowfall and average precipitation or snow days. These numbers had once before followed what the source said until about May or June of 2013 when User:Guardian of the Rings changes some of the numbers out. Those numbers that User:Guardian of the Rings changes out don't match what the source says it is. User:Guardian of the Rings not only did this at Detroit, he done it to other major cities across the United States as well. I tried to change those number back according to what the source says, but I'm afraid that Guardian of the Rings will revert it back to how he had it despite what the source says it is? When I add a source to something that I contribute to an article, I always go by what the source says it is? I don't know why User:Guardian of the Rings keeps changing something that already matching up with what the source says it is?

Take a look at National Weather Service NowData Detroit/Pontiac page and look up the averages to see for your self? OHWiki (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I also notice this on other city articles under the climate section on the weather box like Cleveland, Columbus, Ohio, Seattle to name a few? OHWiki (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
@OHWiki:. I altered the temperatures (mostly) to their present state because they are what NOAA/NWS considers to be official. They are not only referenced by other and weather websites (compare to {{New York City weatherbox}}), but are also quality-controlled to deal with missing and suspect data; they are not purely arithmetic averages. And they, too, are present at the primary source used for the data; you only need to peruse more. "1. Product: Daily/monthly normals" → "2. Location: Detroit Area" → "3. Variable: [SELECT]" → "4. View" These normals are also present in .txt format. I am NOT pulling these numbers out of a hat, above all. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 22:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline

The decline of the city is an important part of its history. Not sure why it's being wiped. --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question, Thomas Paine1776, has been disruptive in the past. He has whitewashed the article of most negative content and inserted overly promotional text. He had been quiet for a month or two but now he's back at it. Every time we have talked about the issues on the talk page a clear consensus has quickly formed against whatever changes were preferred by Thomas Paine1776. He does not usually take part in discussion. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at Archive 6 after I posted this and it seems Thomas is calling for "balance". Given that Detroit is held up as a prime example of urban decay by multiple sources it's difficult to say what kind of balance would not go against WP:UNDUE. --NeilN talk to me 02:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Stacking sources in a list in the discussion page illustrates it is not balanced, and hardly encyclopedic content, WP:Is not a newspaper (Authors of books, magazines, and newspapers, have a bias). Actually, its the complaining editor that appears disruptive - removed a good citation regarding revitalization investment previously to begin balancing the section - and seems to have a history of receiving comments regarding behavior. The city is in the midst of a major revitalization, so inserting a 1970s view is an out of date view of the city and gives undue weight. Many cities saw change after the construction of freeways in the 1950s, again not notable, so Detroit's newer configuration, investment, and migration patterns are typical of cities like Atlanta, thus an assertion of decline is opinion. Detroit has also received multi-billions in the last several years in private sector and public investment and continues to receive more, part of its major revitalization. The Detroit region is actually much more populous and probably more prosperous at present than it was in the 1950s, apart from the 2009 recession and subsequent recovery. No mention is given to the role of public sector unions and union agreements in straining the city's finances, the city presently takes in quite a bit of money from casinos, large corporations, and contains massive Chrysler assembly plant, has a major university employer as well. The city of Detroit proper at present has a much higher population density than Atlanta for example, similar in demographics to Detroit, with suburbs and freeways. The comprehensive study of city's residential property does not support the blight theory, in spite of assertions, the Detroit Free Press noted that the good news from the study was the city of Detroit properties are mostly in good condition, the comprehensive study recommended only 1% of properties needed demolition and a substantial portion of those have been demolished or are being demolished, a collection of commercial buildings await developers, or need permits to demolish, thus the pessimistic view is more WP:Funcruft and WP:Coatrack, and not realistic or encyclopedic. The stats also show 2.9% homeowner vacancy in the city of Detroit which is in line with the national average, as opposed the pessimistic assertions of so called sources and blogs, and the city's 15% apartment vacancy rate is not untypical, especially in light of redeveloped high rises seeking tenants. The numbers of crimes in the region have decreased with the suburbanization of the area. The FBI has cautioned not to use its crime data to generate crime rates to compare cities and the American Association of Criminologists has denounced the use of crime rates as an "irresponsible misuse" of data, this is noted in the city's crime article, the use of weasel words such as 'dangerous' cities should be removed, such words are media hysteria, not for and not encyclopedic in tone. The Forbes source (cited by the CBS source) discourages using crime rates as well, such usage is arguably not encyclopedic, and needs to be rewritten in the article. Sources cited are loaded with opinion. One of the sources added is a blog. There is need to clean-up these additions to make them encyclopedic. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Thomas Paine is saying.

One of my problems with this new "Decline of Detroit" section is that it doesn't really have much new info. It just repeats info that was already in other sections. Repeating the same thing over and over again makes this article tedious and unnecessarily long. For example Detroit's 60% population loss is mentioned in the intro section, then again in the new decline section, & then again in the old demographics section. It probably only needs to be in the demographic/population section. At the very least one of these multiple rehashes of the same redundant info needs to be deleted.

A bigger problem with the Decline of Detroit section is that 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 the section isn't deleted, the title should at least be changed to something more accurate and balanced such as "Decline and Revitalization" or "Decline Versus Revitalization"Lance Friedman (talk)

Thanks. The heading itself lacks balance/neutrality, its not needed. Just for example, presently the city of Detroit's $1.1 billion budget has more spending per person than Atlanta's $542 million budget, with no mention of the cost of public sector union contracts from the so called 'sources'. In 2009, city of Detroit voters also approved a $500.5 million bond for schools. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The heading, "Decline", is used by many of our reliable sources, which is why it appears here. The good news about Detroit is nearly effaced by the bad news, such as the March 2013 announcement by Governor Rick Snyder who declared a financial emergency in the city, stating that the city has a $327 million budget deficit and faces more than $14 billion in long-term debt.
I wonder why any argument is being made comparing Detroit's budget and population to Atlanta's budget and population, when the cities are not similar in size. Charlotte, North Carolina is much closer in population (a bit larger) and has a $1.9B budget. At any rate, Detroit's woes are unique, with Detroit serving as the prime example of urban decay in classrooms around the country (and beyond.) Dozens of books, scholarly papers, newspaper and magazine articles have been written about Detroit's Decline, focusing on it alone. Because of all this focus, it is proper for the Detroit article to summarize the issue of decline and to host link to the Decline of Detroit article.
There is certainly room for the "Decline" section to describe positive measures that were taken in the past and ones being taken now. I'm not pushing for doom and gloom; I'm actually rooting for Detroit to recover its poise. The point is that the issue of decline must be covered in any neutral and complete account of the city. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you got the Charlotte budget figure, the Observer says the Charlotte budget is $563 million [1], much less spending per person.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Detroit has a higher population density, higher spending per person than Atlanta and its demographic is similar.(Charlotte has a sparse downtown without much corporate employment, Atlanta is comparable to Detroit with both areas being major corporate centers). The Atlanta and Detroit budget and population density comparison illustrates the point and shows the inappropriateness of weasel words like decline, and others inserted, One can find a source to headline POV which violates neutrality and why there is a neutrality policy for Wikipedia. The tone is not encyclopedic. The sources tend to be Marxist or left leaning in opinion (which approaches WP:Fringe in the free world), some are school papers, and media hype - the gist is an outdated 70s pessimism and satire, that's inappropriate and not encyclopedic. It amounts to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack. The sources and magazines listed contain editorial bias in content and title. Wikipedia is not obligated to include such opinion. One of the sources inserted is a blog. The U.S. has a free market, there are plenty of sources which show a thriving, recovering, and rebounding private sector. Once again, the comprehensive study showed most of the city's housing in good condition with 1% recommended for demolition, much of which has been accomplished, thus the decay blight theory is false. The city's handful of buildings awaiting developers for large projects, however, there have been many new developments. The Detroit Free Press termed it a major population shift which is accurate. The region is more populous and probably more prosperous than the 1950s. The city has seen multi $ billions in revitalization and it continues, the city serves an entertainment hub, has state of the art facilities, state of the art schools, a major university, casino resorts, a world class corporate center, a wealth of very well kept historic and national landmarks, modern freeways, etc. The city is a partner on regional boards which did not exist in the past, with a regional airport better than most. Detroit is one of a few cities that will have a supercenter (Meijers), which most major cities do not have. Thus the portrayal and description as well as the title of the section are completely inappropriate and not encyclopedic. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your complaints do not address the validity of the term "decline" used to describe Detroit's terrible economic troubles, and you fail to supply a reason why we should not tell the reader about this very prominent decline which has been happening for about 70 years, with authors discussing it for more than 50 years. From 1961, a "Marxist" source example from Time magazine: "Michigan: Decline in Detroit", Time, October 1961. Other sources:
These sources cannot be dismissed by a simple assertion that Detroit is not in bad shape. The March 2013 declaration of emergency puts the lie to that supposition. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The Harpers magazine article you list and also called well written contains the phrase "Post American" in the sub-title and article content, an obvious bias. Time is no exception to bias. Every city demolishes structures, so its not notable. One of the authors you list, for example, has controversies cited on Wikipedia for 'reporting inaccuracies'. The stacking of sources with the slant indicated shows merely they are not neutral and contain much bias. They amount to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack. Wikipedia is not obligated to include editorial bias. Detroit takes in plenty, its $1.1 billion budget with higher population density and higher spending per person than Atlanta show for example that weasel words like 'decline' and others inserted are inappropriate. An emergency manager is in place to alleviate largess caused in part by public sector union contracts - it shows responsible action by the governor. The comprehensive study shows the city of Detroit is mostly in good shape and the Detroit Free Press reported it. The city of Detroit's home owner vacancy rate is 2.9%, in line with the national average. The Detroit Free Press termed it a major population shift which is accurate. Many cities experienced change with suburbanization and freeways. The region is more populous and probably more prosperous than the 1950s. The city has seen multi $ billions in revitalization and it continues, the city serves an entertainment hub, has state of the art facilities, state of the art schools, a major university, technology research, casino resorts, a world class corporate center, a wealth of very well kept historic and national landmarks and restorations, major massive state of the art manufacturing in the city itself, modern freeways, etc., is a partner on regional boards which did not exist in the past. Thus the portrayal and description as well as the title of the section are completely inappropriate and not encyclopedic.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack are completely unrelated to this dispute. I bring reliable sources this talk page but instead of bringing other ones to try and disprove Detroit's decline, you cast aspersions on respected and reliable magazine sources such as Time and Harper's. I don't see any value in continuing this unreal Mad Hatter's tea party discussion unless and until you return with reliable sources, ones that say Detroit is not known for its phenomenal decline. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The stacking of sources with the slant indicated shows merely they are not neutral and contain much bias. They amount to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. Wikipedia is not obligated to include editorial bias.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now you are repeating yourself. Wikipedia does not require its reliable sources to be devoid of "slant", only the prose based on those sources. You still have not countered the "stack" of sources with any which say that Detroit is not known for its remarkable decline. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Your sources to not prove your assertions. They amount to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. Wikipedia is not obligated to include editorial bias.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You have not brought any reliable sources to the table here, just a scattering of ill-aimed complaints, using Wikipedia guidelines that do not have a bearing on the issue. Detroit is the premier example of urban decline in America—the topic must be given a summary in this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Your sources to not prove your assertions. They amount to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. Wikipedia is not obligated to include editorial bias. It lacks neutrality/balance. Stacking sources loaded with bias and assertion does not prove your assertions. The reliability is questionable. The comprehensive study showed the city is mostly in good condition, the Detroit Free Press reported it. The city's homeowner vacancy rate is 2.9%, in line with the national average. It recommended 1% to be demolished, the blight theory fails. The city's $1.1 billion budget with higher population density and higher spending per person than Atlanta show for example that weasel words like 'decline' and others inserted are inappropriate. The Detroit Free Press termed it a major population shift which is accurate. Many cities experienced change with suburbanization and freeways. The region is more populous and probably more prosperous than the 1950s. The city is comparable to Atlanta in demographic and as a major corporate center. The city has seen multi $ billions in revitalization and it continues, the city serves an entertainment hub, has state of the art facilities, state of the art schools, a major university, technology research, casino resorts, a world class corporate center, a wealth of very well kept historic and national landmarks and restorations, major massive state of the art manufacturing in the city itself, modern freeways, etc., is a partner on regional boards which did not exist in the past. The sources reflect this. Thus the portrayal and description as well as the title of the section are completely inappropriate and not encyclopedic.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, you have not seen the following news reports and books about the topic:
All of these observers note that Detroit is very well known for its dramatic decline, even those who report hopeful developments or plans. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, it is a little disingenuous of you to talk about the sanctity of sources when a look at the history of the Detroit article shows that you have deleted 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

But, nobody is trying to "not tell the reader" about the "decline" of anything in Detroit. This wiki article was filled with negative stuff about Detroit long before this new poorly titled section was created. The current title 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"

The Decline title with its faulty POV absolutist/sweeping generalization of a huge city is probably the most egregious problem in the Detroit article. But below are some other issues.

1. Should this type of section even exist? It seems like the proper place to discuss these issues are in the existing sections of the Detroit article such as the demographics section and the economics section. Having this new section makes the Detroit article unnecessarily repetitious & confusing. If someone wants to add something about economics problems in Detroit, where do they put it??? In the economics section or the decline section??? Should they repetitively put it in both??? They same goes with Detroit's population decline. Should they put it in the demographics section or the decline section or repetitively in both??? At the very least, to mitigate this confusion, this new section needs to be moved to be adjacent to those related topics. The info in this new section has no relation to topography & marginal relation to history.

2. Currently, there is a lot of misquoting of sources & misuse of sources in the Detroit article & its related articles. One example of misquoting of sources is right in the beginning of the "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

The crime section is also a mess ,with few of its sources actually backing up its stats & key information from the Forbes article left out in way to make Detroit look as bad as possible. The fact that Detroit does not have the highest murder rate in the country or even in its own state really makes Forbes conclusions & methodology more than a little questionable.Lance Friedman (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

None of your URLs say that Detroit has not seen a phenomenal downturn in vitality, despite efforts at revitalization. The revitalization you speak of has indeed been implemented but none of it has saved the city from bankruptcy and the takeover by emergency management.
You observations about the writing of the Detroit article in general are not appropriate to a discussion of the "Decline" section. If you want to improve the crime section, please feel free to do so. If you want to fix some misquoted sources, please jump in and get it done. The only reason I am here is because I saw relentless boosterism skewing the article away from what has been widely called a decline, a fall, the urban decay, the death of Detroit. This is its own topic now, and it should be fairly summarized in the main article. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

After two weeks of unfruitful discussion, I am removing the POV-section tag. The neutrality of the section was challenged but there were no actionable complaints. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Many city's have budget problems. Stacking sources only shows bias. Let's illustrate, Chicago has proportionally similar budget deficits, for example.[2], [3]. The city of Detroit's $1.1 Billion budget even spends more per person than Chicago's $3.2 billion or Atlanta's $542 million. The city of Detroit could easily balance its budget on its estimated revenue stream of $800 to $900 million per year and have a similar spending per person as Atlanta. Detroit has plenty of money. Thus, an emergency financial manager in Detroit is responsible action by the governor to bring spending in line to deal with largess and public sector union contracts. It should not be characterized with weasel words like 'decline', regardless of media hype. The comprehensive study showed the city is mostly in good condition, the Detroit Free Press reported it. It recommended 1% to be demolished, the blight theory fails. Much of the demolition has been accomplished, and most slated for demolition no longer exist, some sources are outdated and haven't kept pace with the city's revitalization. The city's homeowner vacancy rate is 2.9%, in line with the national average.
Once again, your sources to not prove your assertions. They amount to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. Wikipedia is not obligated to include editorial bias. It lacks neutrality/balance. Stacking sources loaded with bias and assertion does not prove your assertions. Some media sources merely report on the fancruft and satire generated in other media sources, this doesn't make them encyclopedic information. The reliability is questionable. The city is a major corporate center comparable to Atlanta in demographic. The city has facilities, from medical, manufacturing, to research, at present that are more technologically advanced than in the past. The city has seen multi $ billions in revitalization and it continues, the city serves an entertainment hub, has state of the art facilities, state of the art schools, a major university, technology research, casino resorts, a world class corporate center, a wealth of very well kept historic and national landmarks and restorations, major massive state of the art manufacturing in the city itself, modern freeways, etc., is a partner on regional boards which did not exist in the past. The sources reflect this. Thus the portrayal and description as well as the title of the section are completely inappropriate and not encyclopedic.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea what you are hammering at. You have completely failed in your mission to convince me. You refer to Fancruft, Coatrack and Soap when these guidelines have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You make arguments about how Detroit can be compared to Atlanta but this is your own personal analysis, not part of Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources. Furthermore, Atlanta is much smaller than Detroit, with a completely different economic and social history. You consistently repeat yourself and you consistently fail to bring reliable sources forward to disprove the existence of a serious decline in the vitality of Detroit. I ask that you stand down until you have reliable sources to challenge the word "decline". Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you admit you have no idea then perhaps you should let others edit. Detroit has similar demographics to Atlanta, and both are major corporate centers with freeways, etc., and Detroit's spending per person is higher than Atlanta or Chicago. Detroit's population density is higher than Atlanta. The city of Detroit's estimated revenue stream shows it has plenty of money. Detroit's revitalization is massive and it continues. The comprehensive study shows Detroit is mostly in good condition. Your sources do not prove your assertions, they amount to WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap. Media reporting on other media fancruft and satire doesn't make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not obligated to include editorial bias. It lacks neutrality/balance. The heading and much of the content are not encyclopedic. You seem to have an over-reliance on these type of sources and seem to have little or no understanding of the area. The Harpers source you claimed as well written, for example, has the term 'Post American' in the title and content of the article, an obvious bias.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
WTF! Provide a relevant quote from any of those guidelines—WP:Fancruft and WP:Coatrack, and WP:Soap—before you ever mention them again. My position is that they have no bearing on this issue. Prove to me otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
the Great Plains -- farms are getting bigger and fewer so kids have to leave and the remaining population is shrinking and getting older. However farm productivity has soared, wheat prices are high & the farmers are far richer than ever before & the rural Great Plains are very prosperous indeed. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. The city of Detroit has more advanced facilities than in the past in many areas, the Detroit Medical Center is a classic example. [4]. The Detroit area is more populous and probably more prosperous than in the 1950s. The are record sales of $ million homes and a greater abundance in the area.[5] The area has a network of freeways and options that did not exist in the past. The city is on regional boards that did not exist in the past. The free market is generating new business and massive revitalization in the city. As another example of the continuing boom of investment city of Detroit announced last month a new $650 million sports entertainment complex addition for the city to its already world class sport entertainment complex.[6]. More evidence that the private sector is doing business in the city in a big way. The city itself spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago and takes in a comparable amount of revenue per person as these cities. These facts are not comfortable for the Detroit bashers, and hysterical authors, and so called sources. The governor took responsible action by appointing an emergency financial manager to deal with largess and public sector union contracts to get spending in line, which serves to increase private sector confidence in the city, its a positive, not a negative, the city takes in an estimated $800 to $900 million per year, spending is at issue, it does not have a revenue shortage, by comparison to Atlanta and Chicago. These points are clear from the reported facts and evidence. The comprehensive study showed the city is mostly in good condition and the Detroit Free Press reported it, and most of demolition has been accomplished. Research shows two-thirds of suburbanites visit the city and spend money there. Detroit's auto industry profits are healthy, and getting even better, GM recorded its "highest profit ever" in 2012 [7], Ford's profit was even higher than GM, and Chrysler has also reported healthy profits. These facts seem to bother pessimists for some strange reason. Why haven't the pessimistic sources (WP:Fancruft) read about this. Could it be the success of private sector American business that irritates them? Chrysler has added hundreds of jobs in its Detroit facilities, and has made massive recent investments.[[8]]. Jealously of Detroit perhaps. Marxist guilt from authors perhaps. There are studies and extensive reporting that point to a serious problem of "left-leaning" bias in academia and media sourcing [9][10][11] [12][13] which verifies there are stacks of content which lack neutrality/balance in editing causing it to be questionable as encyclopedic content. The complaining editor inserted a Harpers source and previously claimed it as well written, for example, it has the term 'Post American' in the title and content of the article, an obvious bias, and that's putting it mildly. Media reporting on other media's WP:Fancruft doesn't make it encyclopedic. The evidence doesn't support the assertions reflected by the WP:Fancruft and WP:Soap, so called sources, which have bias. The city's overdue bankruptcy is welcome and responsible action from the governor's appointed emergency manager to help break the out of control spending and debt remaining from a leaning stranglehold on the city and state. The city of Detroit's estimated $800 million to $900 million per year revenue stream is a great deal of money by comparison to other cities as noted above, and it has been confiscated by debt from big spending, out of control, left leaning interests. The city of Detroit's $1.1 Billion budget spends more per person than Chicago or Atlanta. Thanks to the governor, something is being accomplished. Terms like 'decline' and 'dangerous' are inappropriate. The section lacks neutrality/balance as noted by Lance above.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It is admirable that you brought some reliable sources here to help make your case, but nothing about your own personal comparisons to Atlanta or Chicago is going to be relevant. Nothing about a supposed left-wing bias in the media is going to be relevant. Nothing in Fancruft or Soap has a bearing on this issue. You have some nerve to speak of "massive revitalization" dismissed by "Detroit bashers" when the city declared bankruptcy yesterday.
  • Your Record source from June says "Detroit is experiencing economic activity in its downtown and Midtown neighbourhoods, but other parts of city are grabbling [sic] with tens of thousands of abandoned or vacant homes and businesses."
  • Sales of expensive homes in the "area" is not what this article is about. Rather, it is about the city of Detroit.
  • Your Yahoo News source reporting on high profits at GM does not say anything about affecting the city of Detroit, which means it is useless for this article.
  • Your CNN Money source from November 2012 says Chrysler intends to add $198 million to the Mack I Engine Plant in Detroit. What it does not say is that Chrysler had just closed Mack II Engine Plant in September, so this is just a shell game of shifting money, and a net loss of jobs for Detroit.[14]
  • You have repeatedly complained about the Rebecca Solnit piece in Harper's Magazine, implying a lack of patriotism, perhaps, because of the term "post-American" in her subtitle. The article, "Detroit Arcadia", is a perfectly suitable reliable source, and it is very relevant to Detroit's decline. We here at Wikipedia do not require our sources to be free of bias. If you think the source is not reliable, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN about it. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Lance is right, the point was the section itself lacks neutrality/balance. The sources you cite include a stack of smear sources, a barrage of negatives, editorial slant that's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not obligated to include the bias. Using the Harpers Arcadia source to claim that the state almost took control in the distant past has questionable WP:Notability anyway, and it uses phrases like "Post American" in the sub-title and content, its more parody than a serious source, and it might amount to WP:Fringe, its hardly relevant. The USA Today source admitted such material is simply called "ruin porn," basically WP:Fancruft. Media reporting on other media's WP:Fancruft is not encyclopedic. We not saying not to include the city's problems, but that they should be in kept in context without weasel words like 'decline' and 'dangerous', or giving false impression that all there is are empty houses when that's actually false with much of demolition completed or underway. The massive and ongoing multi $ billions revitalization is well documented out there by the major sources. Its also unwarranted to give the reader a false impression of the city and the Detroit area by not mentioning the overall growth and prosperity of the area as a whole, when Detroit and its surrounding area are at least as well off as Atlanta and its surrounding area. The reader looks to the titled city article to find such things. Its a different world in the 21st Century. The city of Detroit has a higher density than Atlanta, a comparable area and demographic overall. The city of Detroit and area should have a portrayal are they are, not through the lens of pessimistic leftie fancruft. The city of Detroit and its surrounding area at present are among the finest corporate centers and compare favorably in facilities and place. Reaching way back to the 1950s is presenting an outdated view of the city and area with a pessimism characteristic of the 1970s which is disingenuous, especially since the population of he area has grown much larger. To create a narrative which expected the city not to spill over into its suburbs is unrealistic expectation given the advent of freeways and that Detroit has an extensive network of freeways for its area, with a population with lots of income to purchase a new house for themselves. The city has kept an commendable level of well kept older neighborhoods and has seen new home construction, renovations, and new retail. Its also disingenuous to create narrative which diminishes lower income city residents, older retirees, veterans on fixed incomes, families, and ignores new professional residents, who've been there all along, when they've actually done a fine job of maintaining the city and their neighborhoods. The city has state of the art medical facilities, that are far more advanced than in the past. The city has state of the art schools and approved a $500 million bond in 2009 for new schools. The city is on regional boards that did not exist in the past, and the city is a partner in the larger area. Novel programs like selling tax sale properties at a low cost are designed to spur development and the local economy, its not necessarily to be spun as a negative, and its not un unusual to get tax sale properties for a low price across the country, tax sales properties are advertised all the time. There are vastly more people and more economic activity and technological advancement in the Detroit area presently than in the past. The cit y has new and expanding retail and entertainment. The city has a multitude of well kept neighborhoods, thus emphasis on demolished homes or about to be demolished homes is a false narrative. The city has more advanced facilities than the past and is a world class corporate center. Sources seem to be lagging behind on the housing figures, perhaps for ratings, circulation, and media hype. The home owner vacancy rate is 2.9%, in line with the national average, that's more of an encyclopedia comparision. The city is mostly in good shape according to the comprehensive study, and much of the demolition has been completed, most of the empty houses some of the sources mention no longer exist. Your sources don't support the assertions. The title and assertions of the section are merely WP:Fancruft and WP:Soap and its not encyclopedic. Here for example is the similar media bias and spin asserting Decline of Chicago and Los Angeles [15], [16], Here is a discussion about the Decline of Atlanta [17].Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Once again a wall of text with no links discussing Detroit. "State of the art schools" - maybe a couple but overall the city cannot tear done the abandoned houses near schools faster than the school district closes the buildings [18]. The school district expects to lose 13,000 students and close 26 schools in the next three years[19]. Your vacancy rate is similarly misleading - ignoring at least rentals and probably foreclosures and city-owned properties. Rmhermen (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Thomas Paine1776 has not suggested anything actionable to fix regarding the supposed violation of WP:NPOV that is represented by the "Decline" section, so I have once again removed the POV tag. This tag cannot be used as a badge of shame by one or two editors when no actionable complaint has been brought forward. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Lance, the section lacks neutrality/balance. Chicago reports a $ 1 billion deficit and is closing more schools than Detroit (which is actually remodeling, demolishing, and opening new ones).[20]. Detroit voted for money to build $500 million for new schools.[21]. The students have been enrolling in charter schools, so enrollments in public schools decrease. Your sources don't support your assertions. Detroit is a growing source of high tech jobs and the city is noted by Brookings for its economic rebound.[22]. Detroit is among the top five cities in the U.S. for job growth. [23] Detroit photo essay of a world class city (we could most many cites with beautiful photos of the city of Detroit.[24]. There are more current sources for demolition being on track.[25]. Comprehensive study confirms the city's housing is mostly in good condition and reported by Detroit Free Press [26]. The title and assertions of the section are merely WP:Fancruft and WP:Soap and its not encyclopedic.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. "Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced." Read more at WP:Coatrack. Read more at WP:SOAP Section 1 on Advocacy and Section 2 on Opinion Pieces require a neutral point of view and recommends the poster of go to a blog instead. WP:Fancruft relates to demolition of houses that are already mostly demolished or in progress to be demolished.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep on mentioning this "WP:Fancruft"? It's completely irrelevant. 86.128.1.121 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The only editors who don't have a WP:NPOV are the ones insisting Detroit hasn't declined despite all the sources (and common sense) presented. The decline of a city, and the causes and impacts, is a valid academic topic. --NeilN talk to me 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Stacking sources with a bias, using terms like 'decline' and 'dangerous' to foment negativity, ram a point, is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV neutrality policy. We aren't saying not to discuss the city's problems, it can be done in a neutral way and doesn't need a section heading using these types of terms. Agree with Lance, the section lacks neutrality/balance. Actual evidence shows demolition being on track, that the lagging claims by media of empty houses no longer exist or are about to be demolished [27]. Comprehensive study for the city confirms the city's housing is mostly in good condition and reported by Detroit Free Press [28]. The city's rebound has been noted by Brookings and Detroit is a growing source of high tech employment [29]. Detroit is among the top five cities in the U.S. for job growth. [30]. The auto industry is seeing record profits. The city has and continues to have massive revitalization and investment. Detroit photo essay of a world class city (we could most many cites with beautiful photos of the city of Detroit [31]. Timely news about the city's bankruptcy should not be used as a rush to judgment. The city takes a respectable amount of money for its budgets, over $800 M, it has a spending/debt problem not a revenue problem, the city of Detroit spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago. Further, the city is a major city of a major U.S. metropolitan area and the article should not be slanted to mislead the reader about the area as a whole since its the main article. The city and metro area are a major population center, a major corporate center, similar to Atlanta in demographic and scope.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize the article you keep mentioning says: "A little more than 35% of the city's 343,849 residential parcels are either vacant lots or abandoned shells of buildings -- a staggering burden for a city trying to reinvent itself"[32]? Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The article says 26% or about one quarter of the lots are vacant lots. That's not unusual, to have even one third of land in a major city available to develop. Many cities have a much greater share of land unused. The city has also demolished or has slated to demolish most of the other, so its essentially not there. What you are missing is that Detroit has a higher population density than Atlanta, for example, and spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago. Most of the city is in good condition, and 95% suitable, is what the study shows. So even with the city's suburban expansion, it is still more dense than other corporate centers like Atlanta. The private sector in the city of Detroit is doing fine and improving.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion and vote at the Decline of Detroit talk page shows the wikipedia community's rather definitive support for the term "Decline of Detroit," both as a real phenomenon and as a fitting description.
Furthermore, the discussion that led to this page's demotion from featured article status clearly shows that other editors are upset that this article has gone in the direction of promotion, rather than accurate and neutral description:
  • User:Esprit Fugace found that the page is "obviously biased, strongly in favor of an idyllic view of Detroit."
  • User:Philpill691 wrote that the "article manages to take the small and scattered bits of semi-good news about Detroit and combine them to make it sound like Detroit is doing better than ever. The decline of Detroit's economy, population, and overall well-being has been by far the most important theme of Detroit's history in the past several decades, and this article needs to speak of it."
This article should be brought back to FA status, and if the comments from the Decline of Detroit article are considered, along with the FA demotion discussion, it is clear that the article needs
  1. An unflinching and accurate description of the city's decline and difficulties, and
  2. Better sourcing.
-Darouet (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
XYZ editor, found this or that, states his/her negative misperception of the city, edits occasionally, may be a secondary account of another user, restates source editorial bias or claims he/she read a negative headline. Such and such an author stacked as a source above (who's Wikipedia article shows allegations of reporting inaccuracies in the past), appeared on a sensational left-leaning celebrity show to promote his book about Detroit, filled with anecdotal negative sensationalism. Its disingenuous and misleading to use the main Detroit article to push an outdated pessimism of the 1970s, reach way back to the 1950s, to give the reader a misleading view of the city and surrounding area presently, which are more populous and probably more prosperous than in the 1950s, is a major corporate center (with state of the art, more advanced facilities) and major population center in the U.S. comparable in demographic and scope to Atlanta, has expanded into its suburbs with modern freeways. Media reporting on other media's WP:Coatrack, WP:Soap, WP:Fancruft or WP:Cruftcruft is not encyclopedic. There is a large amount of good news about the city. Multi-$ billions in revitalizations and investments that continue, a comprehensive study that shows the city is mostly in good condition, a Brookings study that shows the city's rebound and the city as a growing source of high tech jobs and, record profits for the auto industry, and the reality is the city itself has state of the art advanced facilities and is a major corporate center similar to Atlanta in demographic and scope, as cited previously, etc. The city of Detroit receives a large amount of revenue, over $800 M, and spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago - bankruptcy for the city is good news. The evidence and reality shows a resurgent city in many areas, and a private sector that's investing heavily in Detroit. Use of terms like 'decline' and 'dangerous' amount to weasel words, POV pushing, and go against WP:NPOV, and taint a balanced and neutral discussion of the city's problems. Agree with Lance, the section lacks neutrality/balance.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is not about the area - stop bringing up the area. This is about Detroit only! Rmhermen (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
XYZ editor would like to correct some of your misconceptions, Thomas Paine. I'm a sysop on fr.wp, and in December another editor came to our village pump claiming that this article was slanted. Wanting to see for myself, I found it to be worse than I feared. I don't know Detroit, never been to the city, barely heard of it from history books (and that rather in good). All of my recent info comes from this article, its sources, and its talk page. And your own bias is blatantly obvious from even a cursory read of this talk page (which I still read completely). You're either in denial or paid to close your eyes, I don't see how else you can ignore (worse, misrepresent) the POV in this article (yes, accusing you of being paid may be construed as a personal attack. No more than your veiled accusation of sockpuppetry on my part). You're WP:Wikilawyering, citing WP rules and guidelines every other line, yet never abiding to them yourself. How, for pity's sake, can you honestly write that "bankruptcy for the city is good news" and maintain that any section titled "Decline" is inappropriate ?? Dozens of links to comprehensive articles documenting the dismal state of the city have already been given, academic research, books, and you rejects all of that as "biased" without a second thought. You are actively harming the chances of this article of ever regaining FA status with your obstructionism. I might as well talk to a wall for all the good this will do, but to the newcomer to this talk page : Thomas Paine doesn't seem to live in the same reality as ours as far as Detroit is concerned. Esprit Fugace (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Paine, I'm having trouble understanding your last post, but I believe you've accused other editors of sock puppetry: you can pursue that allegation with administrators if you like, but I'm almost certain it's not true, and it's offensive to the many editors here who disagree with you but still maintain good faith.
  • As many, many others have pointed out above, WP:Coatrack, WP:Soap, WP:Fancruft and WP:Cruftcruft have nothing to do with the decline of Detroit, and accusing mainstream media of these fallacies is both confused and illogical. Please don't bring those up again.
  • Accusing mainstream media and academic sources of bias won't help, because we rely, here, on these sources more than any others.
-Darouet (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lance, the section lacks neutrality/balance. Studies show a a serious problem of "left-leaning" bias in academia and media sourcing [33][34][35] [36][37] which verifies there are stacks of content which lack neutrality/balance in editing causing it to be questionable as encyclopedic content. The so called mainstream media has done a lousy job of reporting on the city of Detroit which has seen a massive revitalization and investment that continues. Stacking sources with a bias, using terms like 'decline' and 'dangerous' to foment negativity is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV neutrality policy. We aren't saying not to discuss the city's problems, it can be done in a neutral way and doesn't need a section heading using these types of terms. Actual evidence shows demolition being on track, that the lagging claims by media of empty houses no longer exist or are about to be demolished [38], with the governor also committing $ 100 M. Comprehensive study for the city confirms the city's housing is mostly in good condition and reported by Detroit Free Press [39]. The city's rebound has been noted by Brookings and Detroit is a growing source of high tech employment [40]. Detroit is among the top five cities in the U.S. for job growth. [41]. The auto industry is seeing record profits. The city has and continues to have massive revitalization and investment, multi $ billions, which continues, recently announced $650 M sports entertainment complex noted previously. Detroit photo essay of a world class city (beautiful photos) [42]. Timely news about the city's bankruptcy should not be used as a rush to judgment. Comparing a city to the 1950s is disingenuous, an outdated pessimism of the 1970s, a city would be expected to spillover into its suburbs with the advent of freeways. The city itself has more advanced facilities and automation than in the past, steel production takes fewer people, advanced manufacturing requires fewer people, there are other types of job growth in the city, as well as a super center which most major cities don't have in a new mall. The city alone takes a respectable amount of money for its budgets, over $800 M, it has a spending/debt problem not a revenue problem, the city of Detroit spends more per person than Atlanta or Chicago. Public sector union agreements have placed the many cities in U.S. in debt, it is a nationwide, the city of Detroit's bankruptcy is good news. Further, the city is a major city of a major U.S. metropolitan area and the article should not be slanted to mislead the reader about the area as a whole since its the main article. In 1950, the area had no where near the population of today, and the prosperity of the area is probably greater as well. The city and metro area are a major population center, a major corporate center, similar to Atlanta in demographic and scope. Lance is right, the section lacks neutrality/balance.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly in the extreme minority if you think Detroit has not declined. Your various links do not refute the widely available descriptions of decline. As for "demolition being on track" and "bankruptcy is good news", you are fooling only yourself. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The citations clearly show a city with a noted rebound, which has seen major revitalization and investment that continues with demolition on track (the governor also committed $100 M adittional), a city with high tech job growth, advanced facilities, an auto industry with record profits. You clearly seem to be misinformed and seem to know little about the city and area. The studies show that most of the so called mainstream media and academic souring exhibits a 'left leaning' bias, noted previously. So accuracy and appropriate emphasis are probably the minority view. Media reporting on other media's WP:Fancruft or WP:Cruftcruft does not make it encyclopedic. The section amounts to WP:Coatrack and WP:Soap. Simply relying on the mainstream media sensationalism would lead to a woefully misleading and misinformed view. Public sector union agreements have placed many cities in debt, this is a nationwide problem in the $ Trillions at present,[43][44] the city of Detroit's bankruptcy is good news allowing the city to balance its budget with its substantial, more than $800 M, intake of revenue. The comprehensive study shows the city is mostly in good condition and it was reported with the Detroit Free Press. Lance is right, the section lacks neutrality/balance WP:NPOV.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No we don't agree that the citations you have provided show anything of the sort - as has been pointed out in detail already. And the idea that a left-leaning media would oppose a Democratic-led union-heavy city is simply boggling. Rmhermen (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The citations contain sourced facts which illustrate the points. The sources removed by complaining editor show that there is a nationwide problem with pension debt in the $ Trillions from the public sector union agreements. These are not comfortable facts for left-leaning sources. The private sector in the city of Detroit is resurgent, the city is mostly in good condition, the city takes in a healthy amount of money, the ongoing and continuing major revitalizations and investment are basic facts. Good faith edits and sourced information to provide a balanced and neutral presentation of the subject should not be removed. Lance noted previously it is a "little disingenuous" that sources regarding revitalization and investment were removed by the complaining editor. The heading is not needed, it not neutral, and it interferes with a neutral presentation of the city's problems.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So the only editors complaining about neutrality have ties to Detroit? I think it's time to step back and evaluate your neutrality. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point is not relevant. The complaining editor has removed sources that present a more balanced and neutral presentation of the city's problems.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thomas Paine1776, your concerns about the header "Decline" not being neutral are not shared by the majority of editors here. You have not convinced folks with your arguments; they do not overpower or erase the many reliable sources who are describing Detroit's phenomenal decline. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A majority is not a consensus at Wikipedia. And we are not in agreement with your assertions. The sources you cite have a bias as pointed out to you. The facts presented to you show the city has a resurgent private sector, is mostly in good condition (mostly taken care of by its residents), has a noted rebound, has major revitalization and investment that continues. The decline assertion appears to be a phony media narrative to cover for failed government excess. Its not neutral. Pension debt is nationwide problem in the $ Trillions and the sources you removed document that. Your supposing to ignore the facts cited or saying that you have a majority are not relevant to the discussion. Assertions that you found a stack of sources are not especially relevant. We have been aware of the sources you stacked, and find them generally lacking in substance and proof, full of bias, ignoring the city's advancements, and more sensationalist and anecdotal in nature. Not to mention the reach back more than a half century to the 1950s to make a faulty comparison. To expect a city would not spill over into its expanding suburbs after more than half a century is unrealistic. (Perhaps too much government interference in the private sector, public sector union defined benefits, the general failures of socialist or left-leaning policy are the issue for cities in the U.S., while suburbs generally have less government). Steel is made with electric steel mills today, advanced manufacturing is automated today. Freeways are abundant today. The city's facilities are more advanced today. (The private sector is dynamic, the city has generally succeeded where it has worked with the private sector). Detroit is similar to Atlanta in demographic and scope today. We have made good faith edits to accommodate your concerns, but you have removed cited facts. We are simply working for a neutral and balanced presentation of the city's problems and the heading interferes with that.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Repeating yourself (again) won't make you right (or neutral). And while a majority is not a consensus, the need for a discussion is not a license to block any true improvement. Your opinion is no veto, and it blatantly stands in the way of the editing process here. Esprit Fugace (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm citing facts in the article to present a neutral point of view, while the complaining editor is removing cited facts. The $ Trillions of pension debt in the U.S. is a nationwide problem. The city has seen major revitalizations and investments which continue and is mostly in good condition. These cited are basic facts along with others noted above that are not comfortable for the media's phony 'decline' narrative. The complaining editor is insisting on a certain editorial point of view as a heading which is opinion. Consider, for example, this source from the New York Daily News declares the Bronx a failed socialist state [45]. With the rationale of the complaining editor, one could just as easily make a section heading, "Failure of socialist city state model." Is this an encyclopedic tone though? The 'decline' heading interferes with a neutral and balanced presentation. Its a clear violation of NPOV and should be removed.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The supposedly biased media is what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. You have not provided a single reliable source which says that Detroit has not been the poster child for urban decay for the last decade or so, and that Detroit has not been cited in numerous textbooks as the premier example of post-industrial decline of a city. Pointing to media bias will not help your case here. Nor will pointing to the Bronx, or pointing to widespread problems across the USA. Finally, telling us that Detroit is doing well financially is completely insufficient to counteract the many (many!) sources describing the opposite, that Detroit has been in decline for decades, and is still there. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
@Thomas : would you really prefer "urban decay" as title, instead of "decline" ? It seems more used, but hardly more positive. Terms like "fall", "blight", "disaster", "collapse" or "ruin" often come up, too. "Decline" seemed a softer title, not so harsh, already kind of a compromise. What would you propose for a title ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a brochure ? There's not one mention of the historically financial struggles that went on. That's an impressive achievment in it's own. It's like Japan's re-writing of it's history books to delete the 2nd world war. I tip my hat.Preroll (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Map of racial distribution is hard for colour-blind people to understand

I put this article in the hidden category of articles containing images that are difficult for colour-blind people to understand. The image in question is the map of racial distribution in Metro Detroit: The parts of town with lots of African-American people are quite distinct, but none of of the others is.

Frans Fowler (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Frans Fowler: What are alternate colors or schemes? I can go on the Wikimedia Commons graphics labs and ask them to make versions that are friendly for the color blind WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner: I've been away on vacation. The page for Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users has some tips that look useful. Does that help? Frans Fowler (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Frans Fowler: Thank you so much for the notice! I have your request posted at Commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Color_blind_versions_of_Ethnicity_maps WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2014 (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:Detroit/Archive_7&oldid=1136660059"