This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Propose moving of page to Recent developments in Detroit-- Loodog 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The New Detroit title is a good one, its actually historically accurate. Lets leave it. Don't be so rough on the new guy, he's has good ideas. Thomas Paine1776 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions,but i really think this is a good name for it and as you said it's a buzzword.Like I have said many times we are far different from other cities so New Detroit is a good term because it was for a long time in the dumps.I'm glad I started it and im glad people are adding and editing because I do need all of your help and Ideas! TheCoolOne99 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for Edits and opinions everyone!New Detroit is a term being used and it has a definition and this article describes it.It should stay because it's commenly used and deserves it's title and article
I guess this is ok,but I still like New Detroit Better,but we don't want to start conflict because there are parts of Detroit that havent even been touched since the riots.So thanks for leading it in the right driection guys.Glad I started this it seems to get alot of feedback=) TheCoolOne99 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC) -Eliot
The tone of this article seems rather biased. I'm not much of a wiki editor but I could see large sections of this article being written by Detroit Renaissance or someone in Mayor Kilpatrick's office. I am very much a booster of Detroit but this seems just a little too sunny for my tastes. -- 97.84.194.121 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to be specific or make suggestions. The descriptions are accurate, so unless you have specifics you are not making sense. Thus far you've really not made any clear points. case. You object to planning and new visions? You seem uninformed. The city had a new course, a new change in its plans part of which included casino resorts and the riverfront vision. Selected examples are documented in the article of planning even from 1996. Thomas Paine1776 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Specific phrases violating POV:
-- Loodog 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you've admitted the article is accurate. And BTW, there was no admission of bias, the point was the reverse, that unwarranted pessimism would be a bias. I will make changes for courtesy. But the terms used aren't non-neutral per se. Accelerated development refers to accelerated from the prior decades, or from any recent time, there would not be a requirement for it to be 'at any time in history'. A new course for the city is not propaganda as you suggest, its an accurate description. Don't be so senstive to market economic terms, or terms used in free democratic societies. The USA is a free, democratic society with a market economy. Development has risen to a high degree, grand scale, large areas, more than a typical situation or a normal pace, that is an accelerated development. The scope encompasses large areas, so its not an exaggerated description if that is what you are implying. Again, the terms are accurate. It seems you would object to the term "Roaring twenties" to describe the 1920s, which conveyed a much higher degree than 'accelerated'. Thomas Paine1776 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Loodog 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to keep the sort of ubeat path of this article.New Wave,new vision,new century are all terms I like to hear in this article.They wouldn't let me do it in the Detroit,MI article so I moved here.It is especially important that those terms are used for Detroit because people have very scorned perceptions of Detroit. TheCoolOne99 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"As a result, the city is experiencing a significant increase in development."
The word "significant" is vague, unimpressive, and often overused. It makes a far better article to replace this with some sort of statistic. See my change to the "Casino Resorts" section for an example. Statistics automatically remove OR, settle POV disputes, and sound more impressive than peacock words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loodog ( talk • contribs) 15:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Starting over: "prosperity" as a word in the English language has nothing to do with free market. prosperity. So, in anticipating my objection to the word, you guessed wrong.
WP:PEACOCK says that peacock words are those that "merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information", which "prosperity" does.-- Loodog 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
J.L. Hudson could not have had any part in the 'New Detroit' committee as he passed away in 1912 (the committee was formed after 1967). -- Locano 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
With respect to this diff [4] -- when something happens in 2010, it does not make what happened in 1970 go away. There was planning for urban development prior to the present. The article is about urban development, not about Business Leaders for Michigan; a roster of of its most prominent members belongs in a separate article about them, not in the lead of this one. That's WP:Coatrack, WP:Undue and to some extent maybe WP:Peacock. Just doesn't belong. Let WP:BRD go forward, and see if others have views on the question. DavidOaks ( talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Urban Economic Development Initiatives in Detroit be merged into this article. My76 Strat 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Propose moving of page to Recent developments in Detroit-- Loodog 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The New Detroit title is a good one, its actually historically accurate. Lets leave it. Don't be so rough on the new guy, he's has good ideas. Thomas Paine1776 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions,but i really think this is a good name for it and as you said it's a buzzword.Like I have said many times we are far different from other cities so New Detroit is a good term because it was for a long time in the dumps.I'm glad I started it and im glad people are adding and editing because I do need all of your help and Ideas! TheCoolOne99 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for Edits and opinions everyone!New Detroit is a term being used and it has a definition and this article describes it.It should stay because it's commenly used and deserves it's title and article
I guess this is ok,but I still like New Detroit Better,but we don't want to start conflict because there are parts of Detroit that havent even been touched since the riots.So thanks for leading it in the right driection guys.Glad I started this it seems to get alot of feedback=) TheCoolOne99 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC) -Eliot
The tone of this article seems rather biased. I'm not much of a wiki editor but I could see large sections of this article being written by Detroit Renaissance or someone in Mayor Kilpatrick's office. I am very much a booster of Detroit but this seems just a little too sunny for my tastes. -- 97.84.194.121 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to be specific or make suggestions. The descriptions are accurate, so unless you have specifics you are not making sense. Thus far you've really not made any clear points. case. You object to planning and new visions? You seem uninformed. The city had a new course, a new change in its plans part of which included casino resorts and the riverfront vision. Selected examples are documented in the article of planning even from 1996. Thomas Paine1776 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Specific phrases violating POV:
-- Loodog 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you've admitted the article is accurate. And BTW, there was no admission of bias, the point was the reverse, that unwarranted pessimism would be a bias. I will make changes for courtesy. But the terms used aren't non-neutral per se. Accelerated development refers to accelerated from the prior decades, or from any recent time, there would not be a requirement for it to be 'at any time in history'. A new course for the city is not propaganda as you suggest, its an accurate description. Don't be so senstive to market economic terms, or terms used in free democratic societies. The USA is a free, democratic society with a market economy. Development has risen to a high degree, grand scale, large areas, more than a typical situation or a normal pace, that is an accelerated development. The scope encompasses large areas, so its not an exaggerated description if that is what you are implying. Again, the terms are accurate. It seems you would object to the term "Roaring twenties" to describe the 1920s, which conveyed a much higher degree than 'accelerated'. Thomas Paine1776 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Loodog 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to keep the sort of ubeat path of this article.New Wave,new vision,new century are all terms I like to hear in this article.They wouldn't let me do it in the Detroit,MI article so I moved here.It is especially important that those terms are used for Detroit because people have very scorned perceptions of Detroit. TheCoolOne99 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"As a result, the city is experiencing a significant increase in development."
The word "significant" is vague, unimpressive, and often overused. It makes a far better article to replace this with some sort of statistic. See my change to the "Casino Resorts" section for an example. Statistics automatically remove OR, settle POV disputes, and sound more impressive than peacock words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loodog ( talk • contribs) 15:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Starting over: "prosperity" as a word in the English language has nothing to do with free market. prosperity. So, in anticipating my objection to the word, you guessed wrong.
WP:PEACOCK says that peacock words are those that "merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information", which "prosperity" does.-- Loodog 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
J.L. Hudson could not have had any part in the 'New Detroit' committee as he passed away in 1912 (the committee was formed after 1967). -- Locano 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
With respect to this diff [4] -- when something happens in 2010, it does not make what happened in 1970 go away. There was planning for urban development prior to the present. The article is about urban development, not about Business Leaders for Michigan; a roster of of its most prominent members belongs in a separate article about them, not in the lead of this one. That's WP:Coatrack, WP:Undue and to some extent maybe WP:Peacock. Just doesn't belong. Let WP:BRD go forward, and see if others have views on the question. DavidOaks ( talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Urban Economic Development Initiatives in Detroit be merged into this article. My76 Strat 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)