Talk:Royal Oak, Michigan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Royal Oak, Michigan is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Detroit may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Contents |
[edit] Father Coughlin
Removed much of the information about Coughlin in the list of famous people. Such information was longer than any of the other descriptions of people on the list and more properly belongs on the Coughlin page. --JChap 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Someone reverted this for "POV." I invite comments on what was POV about this edit. --JChap 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Edit excerpted one of his most controversial comments as typical and used it in his description. A reference to the bare fact that he was arguably antisemitic is sufficient to establish the point without a colorful quotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.169.21.1 (talk • contribs)
- I'm sure Father Coughlin did much for the Royal Oak community and for his parish; however, the question is what makes him notable. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source, articles should be based on secondary source material. He seems important to historians because he was one of the demogogues who arose in the Great Depression. As discussed in the Charles Coughlin article, in his radio broadcasts Coughlin supported Kristallnacht, blamed the Depression on international Jewish bankers and said the Jews were collaborating with the Communists. Someone who says these things is not "arguably" anti-Semitic, he's anti-Semitic. Introducing "arguably" puts a question where there really isn't one. Coughlin had the Jews conspiring with both the bankers and the Communists. Before he could drag anyone else into this unlikely conspiracy, the archdiocese ordered him off the air. The line about international Jewish bankers seems fairly typical and accurately captures the nature of his fiery oratory and notability as described in the historical literature and discussed in his Wikipedia article. Of course, he may have also had some fine qualities but these speeches are what made an impact on the wider world and are what made him notable. --JChap 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- So remove the "arguably." What you believe is "fairly typical" is entirely unnecessary if a summary of his position (anti-semitism) is sufficient. His radio broadcasts lasted for fifteen years with audiences exceeding 1 million, and only in the last couple of years did he start to make such statements. It's perfectly balanced to state that he brought acclaim to this town and became increasingly anti-semitic; stating that he made a single statement, with the perfunctory caveat that it's only exemplary, is not what he's known for. He was known as a "radio priest" (e.g., bringing acclaim to his parish over the radio) and as becomingly increasingly anti-semitic. I don't oppose removing "arguably." What about the NYT abstract from his death in 1979: "radio priest of the Depression who was ultimately silenced by hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church," followed by "because of his increasingly anti-semitic statements." If people wish to know more about the statements, they can visit his profile.
- Excellent edit. --JChap 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- So remove the "arguably." What you believe is "fairly typical" is entirely unnecessary if a summary of his position (anti-semitism) is sufficient. His radio broadcasts lasted for fifteen years with audiences exceeding 1 million, and only in the last couple of years did he start to make such statements. It's perfectly balanced to state that he brought acclaim to this town and became increasingly anti-semitic; stating that he made a single statement, with the perfunctory caveat that it's only exemplary, is not what he's known for. He was known as a "radio priest" (e.g., bringing acclaim to his parish over the radio) and as becomingly increasingly anti-semitic. I don't oppose removing "arguably." What about the NYT abstract from his death in 1979: "radio priest of the Depression who was ultimately silenced by hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church," followed by "because of his increasingly anti-semitic statements." If people wish to know more about the statements, they can visit his profile.
- I'm sure Father Coughlin did much for the Royal Oak community and for his parish; however, the question is what makes him notable. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source, articles should be based on secondary source material. He seems important to historians because he was one of the demogogues who arose in the Great Depression. As discussed in the Charles Coughlin article, in his radio broadcasts Coughlin supported Kristallnacht, blamed the Depression on international Jewish bankers and said the Jews were collaborating with the Communists. Someone who says these things is not "arguably" anti-Semitic, he's anti-Semitic. Introducing "arguably" puts a question where there really isn't one. Coughlin had the Jews conspiring with both the bankers and the Communists. Before he could drag anyone else into this unlikely conspiracy, the archdiocese ordered him off the air. The line about international Jewish bankers seems fairly typical and accurately captures the nature of his fiery oratory and notability as described in the historical literature and discussed in his Wikipedia article. Of course, he may have also had some fine qualities but these speeches are what made an impact on the wider world and are what made him notable. --JChap 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Edit excerpted one of his most controversial comments as typical and used it in his description. A reference to the bare fact that he was arguably antisemitic is sufficient to establish the point without a colorful quotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.169.21.1 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Bikers not welcome
"Bikers, apparently, are not as welcome as they used to be in a new trendy Royal Oak." This comment seems completely baseless. How is it aparent? Is there any citation that could be given for how they are not as welcome anymore? The "trendy" adjective also seems less than quality standards. Last summer the motorcycles were there, so I think this comment should be removed unless someone wants to edit it. Stanthejeep 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. It should be removed. Zz414 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
no kidding. the police made an effort to work with the bikers to help avoid problems and all is fine and dandy. They are more welcome to RO than ever. They've been well-behaved etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia sucks.
[edit] Gay & lesbian population statement
"The city is noted for its significant gay and lesbian population." There should be some source or information that supports this statement, especially since it is at the top of the page. How do we know Royal Oak has a significantly higher gay and lesbian population than most communities? Is this based on an official census, or just someones perception, which could be entirely inaccurate. RAS
Frankly, I think this is yet another example of wikipedia being abused to bolster some partisan political viewpoint. It needs to be deleted, even if it's true.
(Arbatov)
Agree. It should be deleted. It is not a defining element of Royal Oak's personality. You could just as easily and, probably more accuarately, say "Royal Oak is noted for it's significant elderly population". Royal Oak is diverse: families, elderly, singles, etc.
Are they confusing Royal Oak with neighboring Ferndale?
lol. they are confused about many things apparently. ;)
[edit] my images and additions were deleted
I have some very nice images and additional information that I added about rental housing in Royal Oak, but I see that all of it was deleted. Can you please tell me why? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsawinski (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy related to Alan Kroll and Steve Miller
The comments under the "Government" section related to ZBA member Alan Kroll and current city commissioner Steve Miller should be removed. Although its true public officials open their lives up to scrutiny, the Government Section in the Royal Oak Wiki is not about the actions of those in office. If any of you disagree that this isn’t the case, then you will be opening the Wiki up for potential abuse by those with political agendas and motives. I also question where will it stop? Why not add the section about the former Mayor who stalked his girlfriend and punctured her tires in 2007? Why not add information about the former Mayor who was arrested for a DUI shortly after he was elected several years ago? Why not add information about the 6 car pile up the current Mayor caused at the last Woodward Dream Cruise last year? The point I’m trying to make is all this information doesn’t belong under "Government" in the Wiki, and by allowing it to stay on only cheapens the Wiki and turns it into a tool for possible abuse.
