Talk:Royal Oak, Michigan

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) This article states of the Shrine of the Little Flower that "The Ku Klux Klan destroyed the original, wooden building in a fire." I have been unable to find any sources that confirm arson by the Klan. From what I have been able to find, the Klan burned a cross on the lawn of the original wooden church, but I can't find any references to arson of the original building. In The American Irish William V. Shannon states that in 1926 "the Ku Klux Klan set a cross on fire on the church lawn." Again from The American Irish, in 1929, "With $500,000 contributed by his listeners, Father Coughlin moved the original wooden church down the street and, on its exact site, built a huge new Shrine of the Little Flower." Likewise, in The Encyclopedia of White Power, Jeffrey Kaplan states, "Ironically, Father Coughlin's activism began in 1926 in response to the wave of nativist sentiment that swept the country in the decade of the 1920s. ... At the crest of that nativist wave, in 1926 the Klan burned a cross in front of Father Coughlin's church." Unless anyone has an objection, I will change the article to remove the reference to the Klan burning down the church. Eastcote (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2008 (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)

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.

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. ;)

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)


 * Seems to be advertising, picture is external... Jacob S. grafitti 16:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

Emergence of Royal Oak as a "tourist" destination.
The following was recently deleted from the article, because it was "unsourced" and related simply to "tourism".

"Throughout the late 1990's and early 2000's, Royal Oak's downtown grew into an entertainment and nightlife destination. A number of large condominiums and lofts were built throughout the downtown and industrial areas. Though the economy took a downturn in 2006, the area remains an attractive area for young professionals and families."

I would argue that although this is unsourced and relates to tourism, it's not JUST about tourism. It's about cultural renaissance and change. This is a VERY significant aspect of Royal Oak and should be maintained in the article under the heading of "History". The emergence of Royal Oak as a major destination for shopping, restaurants, theaters, etc. was arguably the first re-awakening of local nightlife and entertainment in the Detroit Metro area following thirty years of decline. Until Royal Oak emerged as a major local destination, there were only a few declining entertainment centers in the city of Detroit proper, such as Greektown. Until Royal Oak became "cool", there was nowhere in the suburbs to congregate, except malls, malls, and malls.

Thoughts? Eastcote (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment
Following an old request left at WikiProject Michigan/Assessment, I've assessed this article as C-class. The most glaring issues are significant uncited portions of the article, bare URL references, and an exceptionally short (for a 120-year-old community) section on the history. cmadler (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
The montage image in the infobox shows the Horace H. Rackham Memorial Fountain in the Detroit Zoo, but the fountain itself is not located in the Royal Oak boundary line of the zoo. It is located well within the Huntington Woods portion of the zoo. Yes, I am splitting hairs here, and I think the infobox montage needs to be updated to include images within the actual city, such as the zoo's water tower or entance sign off Woodward/10 Mile, which is within Royal Oak. —Notorious4life (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)