Talk:Grosse Ile Township, Michigan

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

Michigan Low‑importance

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

Untitled

What does this mean: "In 2001, Grosse Ile was ranked the highest out of 88 school districts in Michigan by the Detroit News. [1]" Highest in what? Thats a very vauge statement that doesn't make sense.

According to Detroit News analysis, the Grosse Ile School District ranked the best overall among school districts in Metro Detroit during 2001. The Detroit News published an article on March 4, 2001 that stated the following: "Grosse Ile moved to the head of the class among Metro Detroit school districts in the 2001 Detroit News School Report card. The island school district in southern Wayne County topped 87 other districts in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Livingston counties. The News, which published its first school report card in the 1999-2000 school year, grades districts on 12 key education factors, including test scores, teacher experience, class size, accreditation and drop-out rate. It is the most comprehensive analyses of area school districts." Source: http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2001/reportcard/index.htm.Mhistory 23 June 2006.

I grew up in Grosse Ile and visit there frequently, and the "toll bridge" is white, not yellow. I'm going to change this.

I have lived on Grosse Ile my entire life and have always thought of the bridge as yellow. This isn't worth starting an edit war, but I'm going to take a nice good close look at it when I go home for spring break. Isopropyl 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the History Section of this entry, there was a claim that a tunnel under the Livingstone Channel existed to assist bootlegging during the Prohibition. This is not correct as there was never a tunnel under the Livingstone Channel. This error has been changed.

recent changes

The recent changes to this article included blocks of text copied right from the copyrighted histories on the township website [1]. Other material was reworked sufficiently to aviod copyright issues. I do not have time this week to sort through this; however, I believe that much of the material and be recovered and easily rewritten. [User:rmhermen] 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments about recent changes

None of the text from the articles (http://www.grosseile.com/community/history/index.html) that members of the Grosse Ile Historical Society provided to the Grosse Ile Township Web site is copyrighted. The township's Web site administrator placed a copyright claim at the bottom of every page on the township's Web site; however, this claim for the Web site does not apply to information that members of the Society have provided (nor does it apply to a lot of other information on the site).

Specifically, the "Quick History of Grosse Ile" is not a copyrighted document. The Society provides this document, written by a long-time member of the Society, to the public at no cost.

Moreover, the author of the "Quick History of Grosse Ile" document has no objection to use of sentences or paragraphs of information from this document without attribution (attribution would only be requested for using the entire text without changes).

All the basic facts (names, dates, places, actions, etc...) in this document were obtained from multiple sources and the author makes no claim to proprietary knowledge. These facts are well-known to people who care about providing the public with a factually correct, and relevant, history of Grosse Ile (unlike the person who posted the claims that there was a tunnel under the Livingstone Channel and some obscure rock band may have once played on the island). If it would be helpful, the author is willing to discuss this matter by e-mail. [User:Mihistory1] 4 January 2006

Under U.S. and international law, every text is automatically copyrighted by the simple act of publishing it. That includes publishing it on the web, the important detail is the creative act of arranging the words and releasing them to the public. We cannot use copyrighted material without a release into the public domain or under the GFDL by the author/owners that is mailed to Wikipedia or through independantly verified emails.

But there is no reason to use anyone's copyrighted material to convey these facts. Just rewrite it yourself! Rmhermen 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments about recent changes

The history of Grosse Ile article edited by Mihistory1 will be revised and re-submitted to avoid any perceived theoretical copyright infringement with a previously published document. It is commendable that Wikipedia's editors are diligent in the protection of copyrighted materials.

The main point of the previous "Comments about recent changes" is that the Grosse Ile Township's decision to assert copyright protection (i.e., copyright registration) for it's Web site does not apply to the articles posted on it by members of the Grosse Ile Historical Society. The authors of these articles have not sought copyright protection and the historical facts in these articles have been in the public domain for a long time.

U.S. copyright law normally does not protect basic descriptions of historical facts -- dates of events, names and titles of public figures, geographic locations and descriptions of structures observed from public roads or property, etc... The facts in the Grosse Ile history article submitted by Mihistory1 have been in the public domain (in a number of different sources) for many years.

The author of a "Quick History of Grosse Ile" is very willing to provide a waiver of any implicit theoretical copyright protection, but as you note, it's probably just as easy to revise a few sentences to make the new article completely "original" for use in Wikipedia. [User:Mihistory1] 14 January 2006.

There is no such thing as an "implicit theoretical" copyright. Under international treaty law to which the U.S. is a party, the creative content of any material is automatically copyrighted upon publication regardless of any lack of claims by the author. No one needs to seek or assert copyright, it merely exists. Facts cannot be copyrighted; however, the style of presentation of those facts can (excluding obvious, natural organizations like alphebetical ordering.) "descriptions of structures observed from public roads or property" are most certainly protected. Rmhermen 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in the interest of historical accuracy, I feel it is important to relate that Heinz Prector died by suicide. Refering to his death as a 'passing' indicates a chain of events far different than what actually occured. It also fails to bring to light his depression which his wife has gone to great lengths to bring awarness of, and it would be a shame to hinder her efforts by glossing over the facts with a 'P.C.' interpretaion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 23:27, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

What to do?

I grew up on this little island, and still live there when I'm not at school, so I know a fair amount about it. I just don't really know what to put on the page. What kind of information should we use to flesh out this article? Isopropyl 05:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a list of former township supervisors would be neat to see, as well as any other notable names that called GI home other that the late Mr. Prechter.

The Revised and Extended History Article for Grosse Ile

On April 9th, the history article was completely re-written to avoid the perceived copyright conflict with the "Quick History of Grosse Ile" that was noted by the editor. The author of a "Quick History of Grosse Ile" is a long-time member of the Grosse Ile Historical Society. Although the "Quick History of Grosse Ile" author purposely did not seek copyright registration for this article in order to encourage subsequent writers to get the historical facts about the Island right, we understand the concerns of the editor and have made a diligent and lengthy effort to address them.

The author of the "Quick History of Grosse Ile" has reviewed this revised article and agrees that it contains facts that are well-known to Grosse Ile historians as well as descriptions of facts that are not unique to any single document or publication. In many instances, the facts in the revised article have been in the public domain for years. Of course, as was noted by the editor, historical facts cannot be copyrighted.

If there are any additional questions about the relationship between the revised article and the "Quick History of Grosse Ile," the authors of both articles would be pleased to send e-mails, letters, or whatever communications are appropriate to reassure the editor that there is no copyright conflict here.

Island residents are very proud and protective of Grosse Ile's rich history which is integral to the character of the community. If it is Wikipedia's desire that information on this Web site be considered a serious resource for learning about the long and significant history of Grosse Ile, it is essential that the facts are presented in a correct, complete and relevant manner. Mhistory 9 April 2006.

Westcroft Farm

Is there an authoritative source that says this is THE oldest farm in Michigan? Seems a little dubious. The farm dates from 1776. The French were here long before that, I'm sure at least some of them farmed. And the Pottawatomi engaged in cultivation as well long before the French. Now what could well be true is that it is the oldest farm still owned (or continuously owned) by the same family.

And FYI, this page from the EPA has quite a lot of good information. older ≠ wiser 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westcroft Farm Was Established in 1776 and Has Been Owned and Operated Continuously by Members of the Same Family

Westcroft Farm was established by one of the founders of Grosse Ile in 1776. According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture, "There are 6,000 certified Centennial Farms in Michigan—the oldest dating back to 1776" (http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1566_1733_22582_22586-67115--,00.html).

The claim that Westcroft makes is that it is the oldest continuously operating farm owned by members of the same family. Obviously, the Native Americans, French, English and other early settlers in Michigan were engaged in farming prior to 1776, but I am not aware that any other farm owned by members of the same family in the state is claiming to be in continuous operation for more than 230 years. That said, I'm not certain that the State of Michigan has officially recognized Westcroft as the oldest farm. This can be researched for an authoritative source.

As for the 1994 version of the "Brief History of Grosse Ile" published on the U.S. EPA's Web site, a more recent version of this document was published in 1999 and can be viewed on Grosse Ile Township's Web site (http://www.grosseile.com/community/history/quick.html). As noted in earlier comments, the author of this document intentionally did not seek a copyright registration in order to encourage the correct characterization of historical facts about the island. Mhistory 10 June 2006.

WTH?

I'd like to remind you that there is another much more important Grosse Ile in the St.Lawrence river that was used as an immigrant quarantine station from 1832 to 1937. it does not have its own article, so I feel the need to create a disambiguation page for Grosse Ile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrovic-Njegos (talk • contribs)

Grosse-Île, Canada's role as the major immigration processing center in that country between 1832 and 1937 is definitely historically noteworthy and certainly merits an article in Wikipedia. But, I'm not sure why it is necessary or worthwhile to compare this location in Canada to the Grosse Ile in Michigan in terms of which is more "important." Stating that Grosse-Île, Canada is "much more important" than Grosse Ile, Michigan is a completely relative statement. Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site of Canada is owned and operated by the Canadian federal government (http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/grosseile/index_e.asp). Grosse Ile, Michigan is predominantly a residential community of 11,000 people that features many significant historic sites and has been the home of numerous residents who made noteworthy achievements during its 230 year history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Ile#History). I agree that a disambiguation page may be worthwhile if readers are seeking information Grosse-Île, Canada and only finding information about Grosse Ile, Michigan; however, I don't think one can make the statement that either location is "much more important" than the other since both places played, and continue to play, very different roles in their respective nations. Mhistory 14 July 2006.

In any case, it's a moot point until someone writes the article for the other island. No sense in creating a disambig page if the other article doesn't exist yet. Isopropyl 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is however, an article on Simple English Wikipedia about Grosse Ile, Quebec. To say one is more important is absurd.

French meaning of Grosse Ile

I changed the translation of Grosse Ile in the into from meaning "Grand Island" to "Large Island". I believe that in French Grand and Grosse are simlar to Grand and Large in English. Similar but not the same; otherwise the name would be "Grand Ile" not "Grosse Ile". The French usage of grand is used in Grand Blanc, Michigan. —MJCdetroit 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the French is quite wrong. 'Grosse' is French litterally translated as 'Fat'. If the island were intended to be named 'Large Island', the term used would have been 'Grande'. Any French language dictionary would indicate this, and consequently I have changed it to reflect this translation. When the island was named, it was called 'Fat' due to its wide girth and not 'Large' because of its relative size in relation to the outlying islands. To further refute any claim to the contrary, I ask the previous poster to consult any current French language text book or dictionary. The entry for 'grosse' is: fat, big. 'Large' would translate as 'Grande'. In a sense both can be contextually used to indicate relative size, as in one is 'bigger' than another, but even a review of contemporary and archaic French shows that 'Grande' litterally means 'Large' and not 'big'. The same review of the word 'Grosse' denotes a meaning of 'Fat' and not 'Large'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 23:23, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

No, this is an elementary mistake. Grosse can mean many things in French. In context, it can mean either fat or large. older ≠ wiser 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a mistake, it is most certainly not elementary, and I highly resent your tone. When translating the meaning of Grosse in the as to the naming of the island, it is imperative and historically accurate to do so in the context of the French spoken in the seventeeth-century. 'Grosse' meant 'fat' to Cadillac. As to using 'grosse' in strict linguistic context; it refers to girth, not size. I would recommend consulting any French/English dictionary or text book, perhaps even babblefish for a proper modern translation. If one were to refer to the relative size of one object in comparison to another then the term used would be 'grande'. Equating 'large' and 'grosse' demonstrates a faulty understanding of the French language and an inability to separate yourself from American political correctness. 'Grande' is a perfectly acceptable term to use to translate 'great', as in Le Grande Monarque Louis XIV or in making reference to one object being 'greater' than another, again in the context of relative size. However, 'grosse', to any Frenchman past or present, has and always will refer to size in terms of girth.

Fine, prove it with citations to reliable sources. "It" specifically being that Grosse Ile meant Fat Island in the time of Cadillac (citations that the isolated word Grosse means fat will not suffice). Despite the bluster, your argument is unconvincing. The precise connotation of a word such as Grosse is very much dependent on context. The township website's history page says "early French explorers identified the island as la grosse ile (the large island)." Same here (pdf) in a 2003 report on the township master plan. If you have verifiable evidence about the history of the island's name to the contrary, other than Original Research based on your understanding of the language, please provide them. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gros = big, huge, enormous; gras = fat; greasy, sticky

gros and gras have virtually identical connotations, each can mean 'fat'

To cite the township of Grosse Ile and its own records as source is itself unconvincing. I was born and raised on Grosse Ile, and if one thing has stuck with me throughout the years; it is that the township is far more about image and posterity than it is about historical fact. With respect to your argument citing the French identification of the island as 'la grosse ile': it proves nothing. 'Grosse' today, as it did over 200 years ago, still refers to size in regard to girth. Yes, Grosse Ile, as an island situated among its outlying brethren is larger, but had Cadillac and the French expedition intended to name it the 'large' island in relation to the others, they would have used the term 'Grande'. Contrary to your belief, language is not as fluid as you would assume. As a TRAINED HISTORIAN, I have examined your citations and, while they seemingly indicate a point contradictory to my own examination of seventeenth and eighteenth-century French, one must never forget to fully contextualize the past as those who experienced it lived it. If the French spoken by the Quebecious is any indication, the use of the term 'grosse' in strictly girth related fashion (as Quebecious is a variation of French that exists virtually as it did in the seventeenth-century after New France was cut off from the home country) is the only one which makes logical sense. To further illustrate this point, I invite you to take into consideration the honorary moniker bestowed upon Louis XIV with your own logic. The 'Sun King' was known to Frenchmen as 'La Grande Monarque' and 'Louis le Grande'. Both translated, as they would be to a seventeenth-century Frenchmen, literally mean 'The Great Monarch' and 'Louis the Great'. If one were to use your liberal interpretation of seventeenth-century French as a guide, then one could easily substitute 'La Grosse Monarque' or 'Louis le Grosse'. This is where your interpretation breaks down, as your results would be 'The FAT Monarch' and 'Louis the FAT'. As French and German are come from the same root language, divergent only upon the death of Charlemagne, the linguistic argument is only further solidified. Groß in German is catch-all term that refers to something being larger than another, or, as in the case of Friedrich der Groß, being 'great'. At this point the distinctions between eighth-century German and French manifest themselves, with the Germanic term 'dick' connotating girth, much akin to the English 'thick'. Admittedly, I am no authority on all European languages, but a cursory examination of romance and germanic languages leads me to the following results. In English (as English is a Germanic language), fat, thick etc. translate as 'dick'. In French, 'Grosse', meaning FAT, translates as 'gros'. In Spanish, fat translates as 'gordo'. In Italian, 'grasso'. Translating LARGE in each respective language, one gets 'Groß' for German, 'Grande' for French, 'Grande' for Italian and 'Grande' for Spanish. Linguistically (as French, Spanish and Italian all share an identical root), this examination of the four terms can only lead one to indicate that the proper translation for the French 'Grosse' is FAT. Translating the term 'large' along the same principles, one can, again, only come to the conclusion (unless clouded by personal bias or an odd devotion to an incorrect interpretation of the language) that the three romance languages share a common root, which is wholly akin to my interpretation of 'large' as 'grande'. If this is not proof enough, let us also consider the perspective from which Cadillac would have originally viewed the island, from the 'narrows of the river', unless again my interpretation is incorrect. From the original settlement and construction of Ft. Pontchartrain, the island would have appeared as 'fat' in the river, hence its name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) 10:11, October 12, 2006 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Are you meaning to imply fat in the sense thick/large or corpulent/obese or unnecessary excess. In Spanish you can describe a person or animal as gordo but not land or, in this case, an island. You would use the word fértil for the sense of "fat". Perhaps that was the use of "grosse" at the time. → friedfish 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To anon IP: Your translation and interpretation amounts to original research. Provide a verifiable source. Also, please Wikipedia:sign your posts on talk pages adding four tildes ~~~~ older ≠ wiser 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to lay the matter to rest, I consulted Dr. Thomas Vosteen, a professor of French language and literature at Eastern Michigan University. He agrees with my position in so far that 'large' as a literal translation is positively incorrect. Had that been the case, 'grande' would have been the choice. He suspects that the usage of 'la grosse ile' was probably being used in regard to the island's importance among the other outlying islands, and the reference is to it being 'bigger' than the others. In keeping with Cadillac's word choice and historical context, it seems that 'big' was most likely his intent. As to the original research, I consulted Allons'y: Le Francais Par Etapes, a biggining French language text, as well as Altavista babble fish and countless web pages brought up by a simple google search of 'fat', 'grosse', 'French language'. As to the linguistic reasoning, it comes from a familiarity with language groups/families that any European historian must be versed in due to the nature of their field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 19:52, October 12, 2006 (UTC)

I can live with glossing it as "big" rather than either "large" or "fat". And please sign you posts. older ≠ wiser 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living with it is not the issue, it is one of factual correctness. I browsed the 2000 Detroit Almanac, and the translation they use there is also 'Big Island'. Also, Think about Grosse Point, Michigan. The term used is identical, and when translating it makes sense to use 'Big Point' rather than 'Large' in that case. Such similar nomenclature only points to big as the correct term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 20:51, October 13, 2006 (UTC)

"Big" is closer in connotation to "large" than it is to "fat". And can you please WP:SIGN your posts. older ≠ wiser 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this issue is about historical accuracy and actual usage throughout recorded history on Grosse Ile as opposed to the ways that French words can theoretically be translated into English, then there is no question that the proper interpretation is "large island."

Widely recognized historical works about the island such as Isabella Swan's The Deep Roots and Nancy Karmazin's "Quick History of Grosse Ile" (http://www.grosseile.com/community/history/quick.html) state that the interpretation of the "grosse" in Grosse Ile's name means "large" -- the French name is correctly interpreted as "large island" in English. This is a fact that is widely known by residents of Grosse Ile.

For example, Isabella Swan's chronology of the island history in the Rotary phone directory, which can be found in most homes on the island, states that the interpretation is "large island." I have found no reference at the Grosse Ile Historical Society or in the local newspaper that suggests anyone has ever interpreted the meaning as "fat island."

In this regard, even if there theoretically were multiple English interpretations of the French word "grosse" in the early 18th Century, the relevant fact for the Wikipedia article is how the residents of Grosse Ile have translated the name for at least the last 100 years of recorded history (and probably much longer). Mhistory 29 October 2006.

actually, the question isn't particularly about what and how 'grosse' has been interpreted by islanders, although that is an important facet of the argument. Cadillac was the one who named the island, so it is important to consider his perspective and intent when providing the moniker. in keeping with this, he would have viewed the island upstream, from near present day detroit and just south. from this vantage point, the island would, and does, appear to be 'fat' in the river. after consulting with the above mentioned works, it seems that neither author gave this much consideration. in either case, i consulted a french language professor at eastern michigan university, and he said that although 'fat' is the proper translation, the connotation would lean toward 'big' rather than obese. 'large' was a mistranslation, according to him and would be explicit, as even Cadillac would have used the term 'grande' (ie: grande blanc). this discussion is somewhat moot though, as it has been 'big' for some time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs). 04:02, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

Elementary school rivalry

I can verify and vouch for the Park Lane vs. Meridian rivalry. I personally find it relevant to an encyclopedic entry.  Ian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.213.91 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I've added information about the Parke Lane vs. Meridian rivalry information, and it keeps getting deleted. Please stop deleting this information. As a former ParkeLamer, I remember the rivalry well, and would like you to stop deleting history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.39.48.8 (talk • contribs) .

I assume you're referring to edits like this? Such information is not particularly encyclopedic. At the very least, in order for it to remain in the article, you would need to provide a verifiable citation to a relilable source for that information. older ≠ wiser 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the references not being politically correct, they are important as they reflect a part of island culture that everyone who attended either is deeply ingrained in. I was born and raised on Grosse Ile my entire life and specifically remember going into the 6th grade with the 'Park Lamer'/Meridiot' rivalry. It not being 'encyclopedic' is a bad excuse for not including an aspect of cultural life that is integral to the education experience on the island. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 23:35, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness has little bearing. Verifiability does. Provide a citation to a reputable source. older ≠ wiser 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For verifiability, spend ten minutes talking to anyone who attended either elementary school in the past twenty years. I myself attended Parke Lane, and was very aware of the Meridiots I would be attending school with upon entry into the sixth grade. Two of my best friends attended Meridian, and shared the same apprehensions about going to school with 'Parke Lamers'. No 'reputable' source for such, to use the term liberally, 'elementary' coloquialisms will ever exist, except in a strictly oral context. In this instance, you are intellectually exchanging with a primary source in regard to this disputed aspect of island culture and as any trained historian understands, those are fundamentally the most important and valuable sources, even if they are only as verifiable as their word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 11:01, October 12, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not an acceptable source. If no verifiable published source can be found to corroborate this, then it should not remain in the article. older ≠ wiser

I am not sure as to your training in historical practices and procedures, but the previous statement demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding the field. Primary sources come in many forms, and there is no axiom that dictates they be published. The recollection of someone born and raised on Grosse Ile is an acceptable source in historical methodology. No one has annointed you the 'grand puba' of this wiki but you feel, for some reason, to have placed yourself in that position. Further, you continually fall back on 'verifiable published sources', when, in reality, something such as this aspect of island culture would not appear in any text, as it is strictly oral in nature and, for all intents and purposes, restricted in relevance to students in the K-12 education system there. Its use tends to go no farther than a bunch of high schoolers sitting around discussing who was a 'Parke Lamer' and a 'Meridiot' at lunch or some social gathering. Just because it is not found in a book does not mean it does not exist. Learn to use sources provided, especially if they come from life-long islanders, as they are just as valuable as anything found in a book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 20:14, October 12, 2006 (UTC)

My training in historical practices is not relevant. What is relevant is what is acceptable criteria for inclusion is Wikipedia. Statements MUST be verifiable to published sources. See WP:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source nor is it a place to publish primary data not available elsewhere. While personal recollection may be acceptable when processed by trained professionals and published in reputable sources with editorial controls, it is not acceptable here. You don't even have a user name. Even if you were one of the most esteemed professionals working in your field, it is irrelevant for the pruposes of a "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Even if you put in correct details, someone else can come along with a later edit and change them. Without any source to provide reference for external verification, the information is unreliable. What is absolutely essential is verifiability. older ≠ wiser 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are absolutely hell bent on 'verifiable' and 'published' sources, then I invite you to consult any Grosse Ile High School yearbook. I can only site the years 1997-2000 with any certainty, but the terms 'Parke Lamer' and 'Meridiot' are used in those four volumes. I don't believe I ever stated Wikipedia as being a primary source, I believe I stated that 'I' was the primary source. In either case, your self annointed editorship of this Wiki is in itself biased and opposition toward a sentence that only serves to highlight a facet of island culture, which, it seems, you are wholly unaware of. In either case, I believe to burden of proof in regard to the terms has been met, unless you wish to challenge the validity of yearbooks published by past students as a record of their educational experience on the island. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs) . 21:01, October 13, 2006) (UTC)

If you are absolutely hell bent on ignoring Wikipedia policies regarding original research, then there's not much that I can say to you to convince you otherwise. I'm not a self-appointed anything. If you bothered to read and understand what Wikipedia is about, and it's most fundamental policies, then you might understand. Beyond the question of original research though, as I've pointed out from the begining, the detail is unencyclopedic. And can you please SIGN you posts? older ≠ wiser 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us an example of an appropriate source? A number of people, you could even call them a witness, verified this information. It was confirmed in many of the Official Grosse Ile High School Yearbooks. What other sources would you like us to present? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.18.249 (talk • contribs) . 23:15, October 26, 2006 (UTC)

I've provided several links in previous comments. Please read them. And I'm repeating this request for what seems like the hundredth time, please read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages? But beyond the issue of verifiability and citation, there is the issues of whether such elementary school trivia belongs in an article about the overall township. In an article about the schools or the school districts, possibly, but it is not a very encylopedic detail regarding the townshp. older ≠ wiser 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to me that you're overapplying the wikipedia rules and regulations here, and being a bit of a sore loser in many respects. if you would care to drive down to Grosse Ile and check out the yearbooks for yourself, they are there. secondly, wikipedia has substantially evolved from a purely 'encyclopedic' source. check out any number of articles, particularly ones about musicians, culture etc., and you will find plenty that is not 'encyclopedic' by your definition. i would suggest that you relinquish your self appointed 'final editorial adjudication' and let the article be what it is. at the end of the day, you are making a huge stink about a sentence, and the only reason you're making the stink about it is because you have been proven wrong again and again, and continually fall back on the shakiest of arguments and technicallities for the above mentioned editorial exclusion. if this article were to be purely 'encyclopedic' then we can strip away about 90% of it and really leave just the bare-bones census material, as most of the information that was culled from 'deep roots' is, by that standard, fluff and filler anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs). 03:46, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'deep roots' you're referring to and don't especially care. Unsourced crapola has no place in Wikipedia, whether it get deleted now or later is just a matter of perspective. If you want a page for unsourced, unverifiable trivia, there are other venues available. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow, either you are incredibly stubborn or incredibly stupid. the sources in question are, indeed, SOURCES and are VERIFIABLE. if it is your standard, then by all means be my guest and drive down to the island's high school, go to the library and examine one of the yearbooks for yourself. if you are not willing to make that effort, then stuff your attitude and learn to accept the fact that you, like everyone else, is not always right. also, since you obviously either can't spare the time to scroll down to the bottom of the page you have chosen as your own feifdom or just can't read, the 'deep roots' which is being referenced is the book from which most of the information on this wiki comes from. and if the inclusion of such detail is aparently no concern to you other than upholding wikipedia standards and deletion of the material in question a matter of time, then let someone else do it, since you obviously 1) cannont conceive that some "trivia", as you call it, is actually part of a culture foreign to you and 2) accept the fact that every standard of proof and verifiability the wikipedia requires has been met, making you little more than a sore loser and quite childish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.140.82 (talk • contribs). 05:52, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure make a persuasive argument. But not really. Try learning more about Wikipedia and what it is about and what the relevant guidelines are. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Clark in Grosse Ile

I just added a passage about Lewis and Clark's exploration of Grosse Ile. Why has this been deleted? Is Wikipedia an organization that doesn't want to hear the truth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.93.115 (talk • contribs). 03:12, January 20, 2007) (UTC)

I removed it because you did not provide any source to verify the information, and based on what I know of their expedition, it seemed unlikely that they stopped in Grosse Ile. If you can provide a verifiable source that indicates otherwise, that would be interesting. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location Image

What's the deal with the location image? Grosse Ile is an island, and yet it shows it here appearing to be on land. - Unforgiven24 ^Talk|_Contribs 23:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that myself quite some time ago, but I figured it just showed the boundaries in no regards to the waterway separating Grosse Ile from the mainland. I've also wondered why Grosse Ile (the island) doesn't have it's own distinct article to seperate it from Grosse Ile (the township). —Notorious4life (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

I thinned out the bios a little. I suspect the section is a little wordy because no one really got born on Gross Ile, they had to get born at a hospital in another town. Then they grew up on Gross Ile or bought land there when they got rich. I haven't dug to the bottom on that; it's just a hunch. If someone can suggest a solution, please let me know and I will do the editing.Literaturegirl (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite source

"Grosse Ile is considered to be one of the best locations along the Detroit River to observe commercial shipping and pleasure boat traffic."

Biased, no source.

Problematic tone - informal

"When not dressing up as chainsaw-wielding maniacs, GIYRA coordinates the youth sporting events for the island children."

Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824105841/http://www.pub.umich.edu:80/daily/1997/oct/10-06-97/news/news9.html to http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/oct/10-06-97/news/news9.html

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grosse Ile Township, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They hire terrorist

Terrorist school teachers 2600:1702:15B0:2ED0:5D92:F8E8:A9DC:B92F (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]