Talk:Atlanta/Archive 3

GA on hold
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.


 * Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
 * References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known.
 * "See also" templates belong at the top of sections.
 * There are too many one line paragraphs.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC) --JKeene 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC) --JKeene 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of the "See also" templates.
 * Added inline citations or deleted challenged statements within the "Religion" section, which accounted for the majority of the "citation needed" tags in this article.
 * Will continue the cleanup as time provides.
 * All previously challenged statements now have citations.
 * Reviewed all inline references and fleshed out where possible.
 * Merged several one line paragraphs into larger paragraphs, or expanded where possible.

That picture with snow on it, whats the deal?
I know us Georgian's get all excited about whatever inch or two of snow we may or may not get in a given year but how is this representative of the climate??? For example: DEATH VALLEY, CALIFORNIA the driest place in the Northern Hemisphere has by far more days of measurable precipitation (more than 6) than Atlanta has of measurable snow (less than 3). Wouldn't it be laughable if under the "climate" section of Death Valley there was a picture of the valley during a rare rain event? Yet this is what we have in this Atlanta article. Nobody outside of Atlanta is fascinated by the fact it very occasionally snows in Atlanta.

Why is it when someone doesn't even change the picture but does so much as add the word "unusual" or "infrequent" to the picture caption of midtown dusted in snow that it gets reverted?

For more climate bias, go to the Climate section of some Canadian cities whose wikipedia pictures are nearly all during the summer with little mention of the snow that covers the ground for half the year. A great example would be Whitehorse, Yukon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehorse,_Yukon The city sees below freezing temperatures over 270 days a year but a quote in the article says "Whitehorse was ranked among Canadian cities with the most comfortable climate.[4]" LOLOLOL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.235.131 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

why don't you use the official records and averages for the city of atlanta you idiot. found on noaa.gov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.234.29 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Population 'estimates'
Why are some of the suburb population numbers followed by 'estimate' when it appears that all of the numbers are estimates? Ryoung122 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are new cities whose populations have not been surveyed by the census. AUburnTiger (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never contributed before, but please take note: footnote 61, purporting to support the fact that 12.8% of Atlanta's population is G/L/B/T, making it the 3rd highest in the country? Well, that factoid is not found in the cited source. Maybe someone else can find it, but I can't —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losemygrip (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 12.8% figure appears to be located in appendix 2. Majoreditor (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Drought?
Why is there no mention in the article of the pending water shortage? National media such as the New York Times and USA Today have discussed the low water level in Lake Lanier, and Atlanta has been much in the news in this regard. A Google News search sith the terms "drought" and "Atlanta" produces numerous sources. Edison (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Be Bold and change it.--Loodog (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Clark Atlanta Univ
Knowledgeable Atlantans: Does Clark Atlanta University merit first (or any) mention among the two or three most prominent universities in Atlanta? I suspect an alum/fan (User:205.129.164.35) is overstating its importance. - Special-T (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Colleges and universities
The "most prominent" should only include nationally recognized universities located in Atlanta. Georgia State and Clark Atlanta are both good institutions, but not as well known on the national level as Emory and Georgia Tech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.33.130 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Thanks for explaining your changes. THe real problem is the phrase "most prominent", which is not qualified or defined. Who decides which is most prominent? WHy is it only nationally-recognized schools, and who determines which those are? Without any sources to clarify this, I've removed the phrase. I hope this satisfies you. - BillCJ (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * News publicity, Business Week school rankings, there are a number of factors. Some schools can surely be classified as prominent.  Skiendog (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...who put the University of West Georgia listed as a school in the Atlanta Suburbs?? UWG is in Carrollton, Ga. No one would classify that as a suburb of Atlanta. Skiendog (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regaining Good Article status -- you can help!
With some minor work this article can once again be GA-class. The main reason it was delisted a few weeks ago was due to lack of citations. Most of those issues have been fixed.

If we address the remaining citation issues and give the article a good copy editing it can pass GA review. Happy New Year,  Majoreditor (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sister city: "ANCIENT Olympia"?
Ive never seen a sister city that refers to another city in the past..is this some kind of mistake? Looked up Olympia to see if it still exists or died out like Sparta-it has a commune of about 1000 people living there, so why not modern Olympia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this rather odd myself, but not only does the Sister Cities source corroborate the listing, the City of Atlanta's website does too: http://www.atlantaga.gov/international/listing.aspx. Very odd indeed. As best I can tell, "Ancient Olympia" is the modern proper name for the settlement -- Template:Elis includes "Ancient" in the name. &bull; WarpFlyght (talk &bull; contribs) 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Metro area population figures
In the demographic section, where do the metropolitan area population figures come from? They are not from the given reference, which only tabulates the population of the city. A little digging on the Census Bureau's site didn't turn up anything promising as a possible source, either. Could someone provide a reference for these numbers? If one can't be located, the data should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.21.143 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

14 March 2008 storm
Here are some photos:

--mav (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Errr ... thanks, but, what exactly do you want to do with these photos? Are you posting them here to ask editors to select one to include in the article? Majoreditor (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If somebody can find an appropriate place for one of them, yes. I think that is obvious. --mav (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion
Why was the small note about the Muslim Mosque al-Farooq removed? This is not something made up. I have seen the mosque myself. Just go to 14th Street and you can see that the exterior is all complete. The interior just needs to be completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.10.162 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a profile about the mosque. It is not current, but it is pretty accurate. Since it is not recent the small bit about progress not being made in the mosque's expansion is not true as only the interior remains to be completed. Everything is expected to be finished within the next two months, but if it is not finished by then it will most definitely be finished by the end of this year. [] Here is a picture of what the mosque looks like at this time: []


 * Because it did not cite verifable reliable sources attesting to its notability, per WP policies. - BillCJ (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the information about the Eastern Catholic parishes into the same paragraph with the Roman Catholic archdiocese since they are the same church in that both are under the authority of the Pope. I then moved the information about the Episcopal Church to its own paragraph since it is a different church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User258 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is terribly organized. it appears to be written by dozens of people, each just wanting to put in a word on their own religious stats in the city. the entire thing needs to be rewritten and organized into paragraph form. as it stand now, it might as well be bulleted. Skiendog (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article
I renominated Atlanta for good article status. All current editors, please review the good article criteria and make any changes that will increase the article's chances of passing. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it.

All the issues bought up during the last review have been addressed. After reviewing the good article criteria myself, I believe it currently meets all criteria. However, there is always room for improvement. --JKeene (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As from what I can tell, this article meets the good article criteria. Most if not all of the issues that resulted in its delistment, especially the unreferenced statements, have been resolved. connor.carey (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional citations to shore up the article. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to GA reviewer
If you have a keen eye you may notice that I recently protected the Atlanta, Georgia article on 28 March. This has subsequently been removed and the article unprotected after a mistake on my part as I looked over the article history and thought those that have vandalised the article are still active, when in fact they are not. Hopefully this comment will allay concerns that the article is unstable and I would like to express my thoughts that this article is sufficiently comprehensive for good article status and does not violate #5 of the good article criteria, which it is being assessed against. Regards, Rudget . 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
I have read the talk and know why the article was delisted. So I will keep a special eye on that. Your article meets the criteria with a couple of exceptions, so I am placing this article on hold.

(More complete treatment at GA criteria.)
 * 1) Clear prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the areas of the Manual of Style outlined in the Good Article criteria.
 * 2) Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations.
 * 3) Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.
 * 4) Written from a neutral point of view.
 * 5) Article is stable, with no active edit wars.
 * 6) If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.

1) I like the prose as it communicates the ideas clearly. Watch for the passive voice in the Tourism and Religion sections (is, are, was verbs). Keep an eye on that throughout the article as little pieces here and there are in passive voice. At the end of the religion section: are there just only eight churches in Atlanta, or eight churches in the Salvation Army? At the end of the first paragraph in "transportation," could you move that sentence into a  reference?


 * Excellent point on the religion section. I have now fixed the issue. Majoreditor (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2) Your referencing works out fantastic. I did find a couple of holes. First, in the economy section, does a development authority have information about the Fortune 1000 having a great presence in Atlanta? Second, also in economy section, could you place a reference in the CDC paragraph.
 * I think the article contains an in-line citation on the number of large comanies headquartered in metro Atlanta. The citation is to the Fortune 500 list, which is a highly respected ranking of US corporations. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just added an in-line citation for the CDC per GA reviewer's request. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3) You may want to collapse the "Major League" and "Other Sports" into the "Sports" section as those two sections are a little short to be on their own. I would also urge you to collapse all subsections of "education" into one section.  Any other sections that are short should be collapsed into the parent section. The only section I would keep the structure would be "culture" (with the exception of sports that was previously discussed).  "Surrounding Cities" should go to the "Geography" section.
 * Good suggestion from GA reviewer on eduction. I have collapsed two of the smaller sections together. Majoreditor (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

4) The article's NPOV works.

5) I noticed a lot of activity in the history log since the nomination, but I noticed that most of it is due to vandalism. Good.

6) You have a great images. As for the copyright, someone should check into the copyright tag on the to make sure all is proper.  You will see the problem on the page.


 * Can someone help with the image tag for the city flag? Much appreciated! Majoreditor (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back in a week unless you take care of the matters before then. Let me know. Best- Chrisfortier (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that editors have fixed some of the issues you want addressed, such as passive voice. Let's see if we can finish working on the rest of the issues this week. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Drop me a message when you feel like all is ready. Chrisfortier (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional GA Point
I am just about ready to give the article GA status. The one thing that is holding the article right now is the status of the flag (issue #6). The copyright tag is obsolete and needs updating. When this is addressed, I will grant the article GA status. Chrisfortier (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will look into the flag issue. The worst case is that we may need to remove it. I am going to see if someone can help securing a valid copyright. I should be able to have this issue resolved one way or another by the weekend. Thank you for your patience. Majoreditor (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the image from the article as I have been unable to resolve the copyright issue. That should remove the final GA review issue. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have taken care of all my concerns. Thank you for your hard work and congratulations on passing GA! Chrisfortier (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment review
This article still has some significant issues, and I would certainly not have promoted it as quickly as it has been. The article is now being listed at WP:GAR so that the issues may be addressed. If they are not, the article will be delisted.


 * Article order has issues, and there are too subsections and sections, especially in the 'culture' section. I would recommend moving 'media' and 'sports' into their own separate main sections, located immediately after culture. Remove the subsections from sports and try to weave the information into one main section better. It might help to take a look at the guidelines for US cities for a better idea of how the article should be structured to help resolve these issues.


 * Promote the 'economy' and 'demographics' sections; they should be located further up. Article should begin with history, then geography, then demographics, then economy. 'Cityscape' and 'Architecture' are not normally included as main sections; cityscape is usually included as a subsection within geography. The 'architecture' section has very little content, which could be an issue with the completeness criterion, and it also lacks reference citations, another issue with the GA criteria.


 * The discussion on civil rights could use a rewrite; I don't think it adequately addresses the topic. The last two sentences on it, in the next paragraph ("Despite these incidents, Atlanta's political and business leaders labored to foster Atlanta's image as "the city too busy to hate". In 1961, Mayor Ivan Allen Jr. became one of the few Southern white mayors to support desegregation of Atlanta's public schools.") don't really seem to go together very well? They seem to be two distinct events that only are connected in that they are both related to civil rights issues, but other than that, they are not connected; but they appear to be connected in this article.


 * I also think that more should be said about the city's gentrification and white flight following civil rights as well. This is certainly an important issue in the city's history that is not being done very well in this article. More can also be said about the city's rapid growth and urban sprawl after the civil rights issues, instead of just jumping to the 1990s olympics. In other words, there is a serious issue with the completeness criterion here.


 * The 'topography' subsection header is unnecessary. The geography section should begin with a discussion on the general topography and landscape; subsection headers should not be used to begin main sections.


 * There are entirely too many images in the article starting right after the climate section and going into the cityscape section. It's looking very crowded and the article quality is suffering because of it. The '2008 atlanta tornado' section should actually fall under 'history' instead of 'climate', since it's historical, and it probably does not need a subsection header -- it would be better to integrate it into the appropriate area of the history section instead. The 'see also' link in the 'cityscape' section is also out of place, mostly due to the two images that are placed at the beginning of the section.


 * Move the 'religion' section from 'culture' to 'demographics'; it's more related in that section.


 * The 'law and government' section has several subsections. 'Crime' might be better served being covered with 'demographics'. 'Surrounding cities' is more related to 'Geography'.


 * The 'education' section is really nothing more than a listing of schools in disguise as prose, and really doesn't tell us too much more about the schools themselves, and how they are related to each other. I would strongly encourage getting rid of the subsection headers here, and discuss the education system in Atlanta from the K-12 level and then leading into the higher education opportunities all as one section. Watch for flowery words in this section like describing schools as "prestigious" and "notable private schools". How are they prestigious? How are they notable? People's opinions may vary widely here.


 * A citation is definitely needed on the discussion of "terms like ITP and OTP" (inside the perimeter). Non-residents will not be familiar with these terms, and a citation in a major, repudable media source is needed so this is considered to be more than just a colloquialism. The first letter of each word should also not be bolded, per WP:MOS.


 * 'See List of airports in the Atlanta area for a more complete listing.' should be moved and formatted as a 'see also' link at the top of the 'transportation' section, instead of included in article text.


 * A cite is needed on the 'spaghetti junction' reference. It should also be pointed out that Atlanta is NOT the only city that has an interchange which is commonly called this, so I'm not sure how notable it is here.


 * Lots of uncited material in the sports section. It does have some citations, but lots of material should be cited that isn't (hence the tag). Why is there a single citation on one item in the table listing, but none of the other items have citations?


 * The article needs a good copyedit as well, preferably by an editor familiar with the manual of style.

Dr. Cash (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, Derek. Frankly, I was a bit surprised when the article was nominated for GA status as it could stand a good editing. I try to help out on this article from time to time, mostly by adding citations, but I haven't read it from front to back in a while.
 * I'll start checking out your concerns in the next two to three days. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to the removal of the rather haphazard list of private schools (including many that are not actually in Atlanta), I would think that some mention of the city's private secondary schools deserves a mention. Any ideas on how this might be done without invoking POV? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to the removal of the panoramic images, I would think that these are useful to the article. Why not reduce the size rather than simply removing them? Qqqqqq (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opposition to the panoramic images, necessarily. As a matter of fact, sometimes those are some of the better ones. But the particular area where all the images are crowded around just after climate doesn't look very good at all, and could present serious problems for those with smaller screen sizes (remember, not everyone has that 24" LCD flat panel that some of us have ;-). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to panoramic photos, but they were awkwardly positioned in the article, and the article still has too many images. Please feel free to remove and reposition images, as long as we work toward tightening up the layout.
 * A better way to handle Atlanta's secondary private school may be to spin it off into a daughter article with either no mention or a very brief 1-2 sentence mention in this article. Majoreditor (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about reducing the panoramic shots to thumbs? Might that work? On another note, I'll get to copy-editing the entire article. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A thumb shot might work -- give it a try. Any thoughts on which images may be best to eliminate?
 * On a separate note, I think the lead will need to be better developed per WP:LEAD. I'll help out on that issue over the next few days. Majoreditor (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-) We're making steady progress on addressing Derek's concerns. I am focusing first on adding in-line citations where needed. Next I'll expand the lead. The final step will be to copy-edit the article. Please feel free to pitch in and help out. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuing to make progress; I'll try to finish up after I return from vacation. Majoreditor (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.


 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"punitive" march
I removed the word "punitive" from the section dealing with the razing of Atlanta. This term is unnecessarily pejorative, and, by denying the important strategic aspects of Sherman's campaign, it conveys a subjective analysis which is not the place for an encyclopedia. This edit shouldn't be terribly controversial, but you really never know... --Badger Drink (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, great article, y'all! I hope I am not messing this up in any way. Just wanted to point out that Piedmont is not Atlanta's largest park. I think that's probably a fairly common misconception. The largest park in the city is actually Chastain (268 acres), followed by Southside, Atlanta Memorial, Freedom and then Piedmont. http://www.atlantaga.gov/government/parks/burparks_parklocations.aspx Thanks again for all the great work! --arblaw (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ref #102
The Atlanta Journal Constitution article on crime referenced in the article is no longer at the web address given. I'm not sure how to treat this - don't want to just remove it. - Special-T (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Colleges and Universities
The University of Georgia is not located in Atlanta. It's about 70 miles away in Athens. Silver4004 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have corrected the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slimming down this article
This article is a bit on the long side. Would someone like to try to streamline it? I'd suggest that the sections on History, Demographics and Culture are prime candidates since they already have separate daughter articles. We just need to make sure that appropriate material trimmed from this article finds its way into the daughter articles.

Any thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I trimmed down those sections today, so the article is back to its 1 May size, but it still needs to be cut down more. Perhaps you should work on the history section; I know for sure it can be cut more, it is verbatim the main article, but I just couldn't take too much out. I encounter so much crap on WP that it pains me to remove well-written and -sourced material. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the initiative, Carl. I'll be happy to slim down the history section. Due to off-wiki commitments it may be some time before I start. Majoreditor (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about stomping on your Population article change, but the Religion section threw me. Would it make more sense to have a separate article for "Religion in Atlanta" or something like that? --Jolomo (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's ok, understandable. It was a big change to an article that only you've put substantive work into, if I remember the history right. Personally, since it's linked as the main article for the whole demographics section of this page, I'd like to see it moved from Population of Atlanta to Atlanta demographics or Demographics of Atlanta and retain the religion section. But if you would prefer putting the religion stuff into Religion in Atlanta that would be fine by me; it's your choice, I'd say. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it looks like Thomas Paine has done this. Let's hope he has common sense ;) Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, I see you've cut down the article quite a lot, but would it be ok to retain the too-long tag until when you edit the page the "plz split this into smaller articles" note no longer appears? Or do we feel it can't be reasonably cut any more? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully we'll be able to slim down the article. However, I don't recommend cutting the lead; it's slim enough as it is, and arguably should be broader in its coverage, per WP:LEAD. I think that Fsunoles850 has some ideas on what may be trimmed from other sections of the article; I'd suggest that we focus on streamlining the body rather than scaling down the lead. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur on restoring the Lead, and on focusing on trimming the main text. I'm not sure what else could be added to the Lead, as that's not an area I generally do well with. - BillCJ (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start slimming down the History section. It's huge, and it should really just be a brief summary since there's a daughter article on History of Atlanta. Please let me know if you think I'm removing too much. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Didn't you already do that? I think the history section is one of the msst important...look at any paper encyclopedia, the history section is the most important. Wikipedia suffers from "presentism"...forgetting the past and writing everything as it is one-dimensional and has always been this way. If anything, simply reduce over-specific comments. Ryoung122 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Removing mention of the naming/renaming of the location/town/city is cutting WAY too much.

First called Thrashersville, it became Terminus in 1837, Marthasville in 1845, and Atlanta in 1847. Is that too much? I think not. Ryoung122 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct use of "main article" and side articles
Greetings,

The goal of Wikipedia should be to be a reliable source of information for virtually any encyclopedic topic. Currently, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the main article/side article system. A side article is used to include an additional level of detail that doesn't fit in the main article, not to replace it. Because many people tend to read first just what's in the main article, there should always be at least a basic level of detail. After all, if something is important enough to write a separate article about, it's important enough to write a summary about. Why is the section on "population" deleted? There should be at least a paragraph or two, for example stating Atlanta's most recent census population breakdown. With the "religion" section, there should also be at least a paragraph in the main article (an abstract or summary of the "side article").

If anything needs to be cut, it's promotional junk like "Hotlanta," "music scene," etc. Ryoung122 12:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So FIX it! We need all the help we can get, so chime in. If your grammar or style isn't perfect, just do your best, someone else will smooth it out. - BillCJ (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sections shouldn't be completely removed, they should be summarized. For example, the Religion section should be restored and the editor who removed it subject to trout-slapping :) . Same thing goes for the Population section.
 * That said, there's still plenty of opportunity to spin off details into daughter articles. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored the religion section to how I edited it down, though I honestly think someone else could cut more of it it out. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Carl. I agree the section can be slimmed down. We should summarize it and develop a daughter article. I might attempt to do so over the next few days unless someone else wants to do so. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had put the original version of the religion section into Demographics of Atlanta, but I've now moved it to Religion in Atlanta. It is only about 10 words longer than the version we have here, so someone should certainly trim this one. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Atlanta, Georgia would be moved to Atlanta. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

world city?
The use of the term in the introduction may have negative influence on the article. Everyone knows that Atlanta is a big city. By shouting "we are a world city", it diminishes the city. Furthermore, the term is not really used that much. Consider removing it. Wikiangel1 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been removed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's back, saying that Atlanta is a "beta world city," like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. First of all, Atlanta is classified as a gamma world city, while Los Angeles and San Francisco are alpha world cities, all according to Wikipedia's own article on world cities. I feel like that should be removed. -71.107.253.41 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Change image header
I propose to remove the current "Atlanta skyline photo" as it looks absolutely terrible and we have had far better ones in the past.Evilarry (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK by me. I don't think the new one is absolutely terrible, but it's not ideal. Majoreditor (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the pictures in the header are use latter again in the article. I don't think they should be remove from lower in the article but the image header should be changed and updated itself. There's a image of the former World of Coca-Cola why? There's a image of Downtown/midtown at the top which is ok. Why is there another image of Downtown at the bottom, and no image of buckhead at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.102.217 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

THRASHERSVILLE???
This is a gross, not very funny joke, created by Atlanta Thrashers hockey fans. Since Wikipedia is cut/paste to everywhere in the cyberworld, this stupid lie has been propagated everywhere. Atlanta was NEVER called "Thrashersville" - its original name was Marthasville, named for the daughter of the governor. That name did not last long, was followed by Terminus and rapidly thereafter by Atlanta. PS I am a native. Antimatter33 (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that. See this. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why we rely on sources instead of personal knowledge. Also see . There is a picture of the marker on Flickr; it could be used on History of Atlanta page? Fences and windows (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Qqqqqq and Fences and windows for presenting sources showing that Thrasherville really existed. Majoreditor (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had no idea until I Googled it. That Flickr pic that Fences and windows found could be added, based on its licensing. If there's a sense that that image would add something useful, then I'll add it. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Content on Latino population - It needs to be reviewed before being put back in
Below this line is content cut from a number of sloppy edits. Some of it might be appropriate for the article but most either should not be in wikipedia (ie. contact info) or should be it's own article such as "Social Services for Latinos in the Atlanta Metro Area" or something like that.


 * Thanks for the note. I see that someone has added back the material you removed. I have moved it into a new article named Hispanic and Latino Communities in Atlanta. I have also added apropriate links in this article so readers can easily navigate to the new article. Since the article on Atlanta is already so long (and takes forever to load) we should summarize material about each demographic group in the main article and create daughter articles which contain the details. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits
Explanation of why I reverted two recent, good-faith, major edits to the intro. One of the population numbers was changed (2000 census) to no longer match the reference, one of the numbers is an estimate (2008 metro area) and not a measured number (I think this problem was there before), and the claim that Atlanta is the unofficial capital of the south was inserted into a sentence with a footnote, but I can't find that claim in the ref. It seems that the likelihood of error will be less if these edits re-done from scratch. - Special-T (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted these for a second time, for the same reasons. I'm sure there's some useful info in your edits, but you can't just change a population number (which was well-referenced by the census document), when the inline reference contradicts your change. Also, again, "unofficial capital of the South": you inserted that into a sentence with an inline ref, but I can't find an mention of it in the ref. Even if it is, it's POV or local boosterism. - Special-T (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sports teams
Should sports teams that play in the metropolitan area outside the city itself really be included in this article? It seems that these would be better described in Metro Atlanta instead, since their affiliation with the city is in name only, and sometimes not even that. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Police Raid on Eagle (Gay Bar)
Should there be mention about the police raid at the Eagle gay bar and the way the police handled the patrons?Allyn (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not in this article, per WP:RECENTISM. This article is already very lengthy, and the raid on the bar doesn't seem so significant as to merit mention here. However, it may well deserve a mention in other articles. Majoreditor (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

'Stolen'
Article previously stated that the land was 'stolen' from the Cherokee and Creeks. This was tagged as lopsided. I changed 'stolen' to 'taken' and removed the tag. The word 'stolen' here would require formal recognition of private property and some sort of recording thereof, so I think taken, in addition to being less provocative, is also more accurate. Stancollins (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stan. Majoreditor (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Demographics
Someone keeps altering the demographics section to include info about Metro Atlanta. We need to try to keep as much info about Metro Atlanta out as possible, as Metro Atlanta has its own page. Metro Atlanta info may be helpful in areas like the intro and companies/universities, but it is pointless to add to the demographic info when there is already so much info about the city itself. I have made a Demographic section on the Metro Atlanta page and relocated the info there - so feel free to add to it. Mmann3333 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sports
I completely reworked the sports section. I added two subheadings, shortened the topics on the Braves, Falcons, Hawks, and Thrashers as well as including main article links to their main pages. Further I removed mentions of defunct teams and organizatons not based in Atlanta, such as the "Georgia Force." I have saved all of the deleted references on a word document of my computer, so if anyone feels I was unjustified in removing them I will be happy to re-introduce them if you let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AUburnTiger (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why mention of Atlanta as one of three U.S. cities to host summer games is tagged onto a paragraph about civil rights and race relation issues in the intro - perhaps it should be a separate paragraph? jmdeur 15:15 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * someone clearly didn't know what they were doing. Skiendog (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Should championships and finals appearances earned by teams PRIOR to their moves to Atlanta (thinking about the Braves and Hawks) really be listed as if they were won in Atlanta? ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Building misidentified as state capitol in photo caption
The domed building pictured alongside the section on law and government is NOT the Georgia state capitol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencegoare (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed, it is not. I noticed this, too. After a search of various state capitols, the image appears to be the Missouri state capitol in Jefferson City. The Missouri capitol, while certainly attractive in its own right, looks nothing like Georgia's capitol building. Nor do the capitol grounds in Jefferson City resemble their counterparts in Atlanta. What is necessary to replace the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by High Ranger (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been removed. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any palmettos in Atlanta?
I'm curious, are there any palmettos growing in Atlanta (as in planted in the ground and left outside all year)? I'm curious and would appreciate it if someone could inform me as to whether or not I will be able to see palmettos when visiting Atlanta (and, actually am considering moving there and well, I know it sounds silly but my wife and I really like palms, and this has some weight in our choice of where to move). Obviously, I realize that palms won't be all over the place in Atlanta (it's still pretty far north, not on the coast, and is relatively high in elevation), I'm just wondering if there are any at all in the Atlanta area. It would be pretty cool if someone would include a photo in the article of a palmetto if they do actually grow there. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Update to Lead
Concerning this edit, I've examined the given source,, and it's not an official population count of any kind. The source is a blog, and the numbers come from a coputer. I don't think this should be mentioned at all in the article, but certainly not in the Lead. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There's articles that state future population projection that no way they can be official since there projection, not to mention they’re not by the census. Than even with in this article there’s facts that stated in the demographics not back by the census but rather some other sources, but those can make the article but this can't? So I don’t understand what’s the issue with this not being the census, then I stated the estimate is from Business First not to be confuse with census! Check the link again because that was a misleading generalization, Business First is a news journal, and to make it so bad quote from them “Projected populations are generated by a computer formula that Business First developed in 2000. The formula uses a decade of U.S. Census Bureau data to extrapolate growth trends.” Other media outlets have also went on to release this data from them. , ,Here's the ranking. If this is not mention in the lead it should at leat be mention in the article. toneythegreat (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

History > Natives
Okay, if we're going to bring up the Trail of Tears and the "ejection" of natives in the areas, then it needs its own section and needs to be written without needles. I myself am part Apache, but get off the high horse here. What's done is done and it needs to be written in a non-biased and cohesive manner. History is just that, history. It means it is done and over with. Let's move along and document it properly without stupid bitterness. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the weasel words such as "forced exile" with a simple "exile" since exile is rarely voluntary and removed the "taken away" comment and replaced it with "obtained". Now if you want to write a section on how this was done and how natives were affected, then fine. Go for it. Otherwise there is no reason to include bitter words here. The article loses credibility with descriptive words like that. Either make a case, or replace. That my motto. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Muliple issues/vandalism
This page has multiple issues including vandalism. A template should be added! Do you agree? Get lost in Boston (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. We don't add templates to articles because of vandalism. But go on...what other issues do you have with the article? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Red/dead links, incorrectly named local schools (Culture) and landmarks, inaccuracies to name a few. Ridiculous assertions like this one: "Total crime is only down 24 percent, violent crime is only down 27 percent. Rape is only down 19 percent."  The inclusion of specific addresses linked with USPS whitepages.   Very poorly researched material is present in more than one section.  The spelling and grammar are inconsistent throughout the article.  Buzzwords including explosive.  Parts of it seem to have been added by editor(s) without a NPOV.  A pretentious tone is used, suggesting the editor(s) has a vendetta but has limited knowledge of the city of Atlanta.  Get lost in Boston (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In an article this size, it's better to use section headers and inline tags to point out specific issues. Overall, the article is pretty good, so adding general tags at the top won't help other editors to know what and where the specific issues are. Red links (internal WP links) can be a good thing, as they signify a potential article. We don't geneally remove them unless articles on those topics are unlikely to ever be created. - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend being bold and start changing the things you want to change...just make sure you can source it. If you can't fix it and questions need to be asked then, as BilCat says, use inline templates along with the talk page to explain in more detail. When you do template something, people are expecting discussion to go along with it. After you did this to the article, it appears Bil waited for 40 minutes for you to discuss here on the talk page and when you didn't he correctly removed the templates. Also, see WP:REDLINK. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 20:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * THANKS! I had taken a time out (It was needed after several hours of work here).  I didn't know he waited that long, but responded when I came back.  Thanks again!  Get lost in Boston (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

photo of building misidentified as state capitol
The building in the photo alongside the government section of the article is not the Georgia capitol. This photo was removed once but has found its way back into the article. 98.66.184.83 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo Montage
Hey, who did the montage? I was looking at the page for other American cities and Atlanta's is not really up to par. I think the skyline view on top is great, and Peachtree Plaza/Olympic Rings should also stay. But none of the other pictures really portray unique features of the city. The lower left skyline view--do we really need two skyline shots? And Turner Field--is Turner Field really the best we have to offer in the montage? What major American city doesn't have a baseball stadium? Coke--that's the old world of coke building. It needs to be updated. I have some ideas but I also want to hear from others before I alter it: -High Museum -Atlanta Botanical Garden Canopy Walk -Millennium Gate -Carter Presidential Center -Georgia Aquarium -New World of Coke -CNN Center -Fox Theater -Oakland Cemetery -Little Five Points These are just some ideas. I want to get input, perhaps name which ones you think should go in it.--Mmann1988 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

demographics
hi - no idea even how to change this - but even I as a white man find it offensive that whites are listed 1st when they are only the 2nd most important group - thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.186.76 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You find that offensive?! Wow. Whites are the majority in US, which is probably why they are listed first. Atlanta's page follows precedent set by every other city page, even those with minority-majority populations. I find it offensive that you are ranking races as "important". --Mmann1988 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that the demographics of the city are actually incorrect. The study cited is skewed base on a population that does not even exist. Whats more is that the U S Census bureau says something quite different. Furthermore, the initial commentator is correct about the ranking of White first. THERE is NO precedent set that does that. Such is BULL and you know it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.178.6 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Population dispute
This article is about the city of Atlanta in its entirity, covering its history, culture, economy, etc. The Lead is to be a brief summary of the basic salient points of the article. I can't see how the population dispute merits a mention in the second line of the article. I agree it needs to be covered, but that should be done in the main text of the article, which is where the other editor moved it. Be sure the section includes the other viewpoint, which is that the estimate my have been too high, and that many federal dollars are based on a city's population, which is the root of the cause of the outcry by the mayor. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I moved it to the Demographics section in deference to your remarks that it shouldn't be in the lead. I trust that there is no problem with indicating it is a census figure and cannot for the moment be stated as a fact. You are right that federal dollars are one reason to be upset, but it is only an opinion that that is why the mayor is contesting the census results. Atlanta is the only city in the country with such a gap between estimates and 2010 census figures. And anyone who lives in the City of Atlanta knows that the intown parts of the City have been growing fast and so analysis is required as to how growth could be virtually zero since 2000.Keizers (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree that it belongs in the demographics section. A lead is no place for disputed facts, and discrepancies. The lead should state the census data and the demographics should state the discrepancies and theories. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting Edit War
NOTE: The following has been moved, word-for-word, from my personal Talk page to this one. I feel than content discussions (which I believe this to be) should be held in plain sight and any interested parties should be allowed to participate. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You have started an edit war, which I see is not the first time this has happened. I have added the Michael C. Carlos museum back to the page. I have a feeling it has become political, for you have some animosity towards the museum or ancient art. If you undo it, I will report you to an administrator.--Mmann1988 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I most certainly have not started an edit war and I object to your unfriendly accusation. Had you taken time to read my Talk page entries (I don't alter or remove them), you would have discovered that the other purported "edit war" was an editor's response to my objection to non-encyclopedic content added to an article. Some people think they can put spam, rumor or plain ol' crap anywhere they want and, when I find it, I try to put a stop to it. Some folks don't like that. Too bad--it's not the first time and it probably won't be the last.


 * Your actions make me wonder if you are familiar with the process called Bold-Revert-Discuss. I believe it's applicable to this issue and here is how it works: You start out by making a WP:BOLD change to a page (as you did here: ).


 * If someone disagrees with your edit for some reason, they may revert it, which I did (see ). I included an Edit Summary, too, which you forgot to do: "Is this museum notable? Why not explain what you did and why? Rv unexplained, unsourced addition of info.")


 * This is where the "Discuss" comes into play. If you (the original editor) disagree with the revert, you are supposed to discuss the change on the article's Talk page so other editors can weigh in and consensus may be reached. I explained my actions on your Talk page (see ) but you chose not to respond. (You did blank the page--as is your right--but rest assured your Talk page history remains available for research--Wikipedia never forgets!)


 * What you're not supposed to do is revert the revert, as you did here: (though you did provide an Edit Summary this time, though: "Largest collection of ancient art in the South".)


 * And then we went though one more cycle of this, culminating with you leaving this message on my Talk page accusing me of edit warring, which I have not done (and which some would not consider WP:CIVIL behavior).


 * I hate to tell you this, but you do not WP:OWN this article, nor do you get to single-handedly decide what is included and what is not.


 * The simple fact of the matter is that I feel your attempt to list the Carlos museum alongside such institutions as the High Museum of Art may well constitute undue weight. Had you been willing to discuss it, I would have explained I think we owe it to our readers to keep less-than-notable entries out of a list of major museums. If you have documentation that proves your assertions, fine--you would not have heard any more objections from me.


 * So, I'm moving this interchange to the Atlanta article's Talk page--which is where you should have put it in the first place--and we will see if anyone is interested in commenting.


 * Also, I will continue to oppose undocumented or unsourced additions to the encyclopedia. If you are willing to justify your actions with more than "because I said so", you and I will get along just fine. If however, you are unwilling to explain and discuss your actions with your fellow editors, I believe you will find I am the least of your worries. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Question About Naming?
Granted, I am not a member of any of the WikiProjects that deal with cities, so I am unaware. But I am curious why this page is set as Atlanta and not Atlanta, Georgia? Shouldn't Atlanta be the link to the disambiguation page? I thought convention on Wikipedia is when multiple pages are set with similar names, the disambiguation page should be where the singular name goes and each page should have a modifier. In this case, Atlanta, Georgia should be the modifier. So I am curious why this page is different? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The city of Atlanta, Georgia is the clear primary topic for the word "Atlanta", per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As to why it's not at Atlanta, Georgia, with Atlanta redirecting there, that's becuase it's one of the largest cities in the US. US cities not in the largest category (I don't know what the cut-off is) are required to use the state name in the article title. For example, the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee is clearly the primary topic, so Chattanooga redirects there, while the DAB page is at Chattanooga (disambiguation). I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like an unusual thing to cut some off but not all. But if that's what consensus came up with that's fine. Just seems to lack uniformity to me. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Reducing Length and Bringing in Relevant Topics and Facts
I agree the article is too long, but I think instead of modifying single sentences, it would easier to move paragraphs to a "see more" page, or edit one paragraph at a time. Some of the edits, while reducing the length, have stripped the article of its professional writing style, which I think is one of its strong points. We need to make sure edits preserve the "encyclopedic" prose.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I understand your point about having an encyclopedic style, but even then some of the sentence structure is extremely drawn out and long. You are right it really needs a paragraph by paragraph review and removal of minutiae particularly about the Civil War. A lot of topics about 20th century Atlanta are glaringly missing, e.g. white flight, blockbusting, the growth of suburbia and exurbia.
 * I think this is all moving much too fast. Atlanta's history section may be long, but it is superbly written. Let's wait to do edits until we come up with a strategy. I undid the ones you made today because I think it's important we come up with a game plan. Here is my idea:
 * Edit a paragraph at a time, and then allow a week or so for others to review the edits. That way its not so overwhelming to view the changes and see what was taken out, and it also allows others to contribute.
 * Also, I did notice that the Gone With the Wind edit was very extensive. This was a very significant moment in Atlanta's history, perhaps one of the biggest events of the 20th Century, only second to the Olympics. Also, if we are taking out details, it needs to be even. GWTW was completely stripped, while the 1906 riots were expanded.
 * That's why I think we need to go about this slowly, starting with the first paragraph, and allow a week or so in between.--Mmann1988 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I'll do a paragraph a week so I'm putting back my changes to the first paragraph. That section was definitely not superbly written (e.g. "a small part of the land...", mentions of Indian tribes in two places, etc.) In general I think we have two different points of view on Atlanta history though and the edit process will facilitate bringing those together.


 * In my opinion the history of Atlanta is not only about landmark events, though those are important. Yes, the GWTW premiere but the city in the national spotlight. But what is equally important to mention, and more important in substance, are how the city changed over the decades. Trends such as blockbusting, the history of the political machine and the change of power when blacks became the majority in 1970, white flight and the growth of the suburbs/exurbs, influx of people and companies from outside the South, building of the freeway system and demise of streetcars/trolleybuses... those are the factors that truly change what Atlanta was vs. what it is.


 * Lastly, racial issues are glossed over in this article. I am not obsessed about race but that always has been a primary issue in this city. For example in the 1906 riots it says "racial tensions mounted". That is very weak and doesn't begin to speak the truth about what those riots were - which was a white mob chasing down any black person they could find and beating up or murdering them, after newspapers whipped up passions around supposed black rapes of white women. These kind of things have to be at least mentioned in the sentence describing the riots in order to even communicate what happened there.


 * This is if we want to have a real view of history and not a picture postcard about the Civil War and GWTW, or a "booster" article from the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce which is meant to show the good side of the city only.Keizers (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I was duped and you were not honest about the real motivation behind your edits, which seems to be a racially-motivated agenda. This is shown by your reducing of the GWTW premiere to one sentence. While the movie may have been racially insensitive, it was a part of Atlanta's history nonetheless. You want to minimize/eliminate/reduce any elements that would be racially insensitive, including the Civil War. This is ridiculous.


 * The events you mention are adequately described. The main article does not need to go into the minute details of the Race Riot -- that's what the sub-page is for. The other events, such as blacks becoming the majority, are clearly mentioned: "African-American Atlantans demonstrated growing political influence with election of the first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, in 1973. They became a majority in the city during the late 20th century." What else needs to be said? Why do we need to turn this into a politically motivated article?


 * And you clearly are obsessed with race. Not every event in Atlanta's history revolved around it. This doesn't need to be a sociology article about race. It's about Atlanta's history.


 * Lastly, you are curbing events and facts that took place before the 20th century and shifting the focus of the section to being 20th Century dominated. Each era needs its fair share. Not every event can be included. I think the 20th Century is adequately summed up and there is a good balance.


 * For these reasons, I am now opposed to any overhaul of the history section, and I have started a new part of the discussion (see below) to get other editors involved.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is starting to feel like a personal attack, Mmann1988.
 * 1. First and foremost, I have no political motive, I simply feel that a variety of topics are under-represented, and the Civil War is vastly over-represented. I did not have any "racial" take on GWTW, I simply found that there was far too much detail about it. As you see my edit keeps the detail. I would ask that you back down from accusing me of political motives
 * 2. I would ask that you react to my edits on the basis of their content and not just reverse them for the sake of reversing them. It is pretty clear to me that you have not read the content of the changes to the first paragraph - the facts are more concise, relevant, in order, balances and there are far more references. Thanks.
 * 3. A small detail, but the fact that I added information about the freeway revolt, and created an extensive article about that same topic, should only be applauded. It is an important topic in Atlanta history and was missing. I did a lot of research on it and writing it. What is wrong with that.
 * 4. I think it's a healthy debate as to what kind of topics should make their way into this article and at what length. But again to head the section below "Political" is judgemental and inflammatory. You may want to rethink that.
 * 5. Why don't you just give me a chance and actually read my edits? If you don't think they are good, then change or reverse the parts where you genuinely think there's a mistake instead of just reversing everything I do. I will NOT get into an edit war because that is against Wikipedia policy, as you have seen in the past.Keizers (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I only reverted today so your attention would be directed to the discussion page. I did not intend for political to be a personal attack. I was just being honest on my impression of the things you want to take out, because many people are offended by GWTW and the Civil War and thus feel they should be minimized or ignored. In addition, some of the other edits you want to include are debatable theories. Read Politics. I think we should try and keep theory out of this history section, because like that article says, it will inevitably lead to politics (or religion), which will lead to edit wars. Here is an example:


 * Theory: The 1906 Race Riot was the result of white fears of black economic success.
 * Fact: The 1906 Race Riot was the result of racial tensions between whites and blacks.


 * One is theory/opinion, one is fact. Of course, the theory could be supported by references, but do we really need to go there? Lets keep it focused on what happened, not why, and avoid politics altogether.
 * And nothing is wrong with the freeway inclusion. But that was just to illustrate that while some editors may find a topic of Atlanta interesting enough to write an article about it, that doesn't mean it necessarily warrants inclusion on the main page.
 * I think we should proceed with the strategy we agreed on earlier, but perhaps start with the first paragraph and work downward. When we get to a place where we feel something should be added, do so. Once we get to the last paragraph (several weeks from now), there will be a clearer picture of the result.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the edits to my edits on the pre-Civil War era. You're clearly knowledgeable about 19th century local historyKeizers (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)