Talk:Michigan/Archive 1

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.

Two Isles Royale?

I'm not sure where to bring this up, but most of the state maps on the county pages seem to have an error: they show two Isle Royales (or is that Isles Royale?) to the left of Keweenaw county, as in this map. The smaller island should be erased, to appear as in this map. Any thoughts on this?

I put a list of the correct maps here.

—Kairotic 05:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I have copied this to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Michigan. The replacement maps can be found at this page on Commons. Rmhermen 05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Old

The map is superimposing over some of the words. Can somebody fix this? I had no idea how. -- Zoe

I think we should replace with one of the governments maps at nationalatlas.gov. Some states are already doing this. Unless I hear an objection, I'll probably do it in a few days. Queson 19:44, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I object, for the same reason that I objected the last time that map was added. The map on this page is designed to specifically show the territorial waters of Michigan which are not shown on the other which is linked to right after the present map. Rmhermen 02:38, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you put that new map there? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Euphoria 04:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could we get a map which actually shows all of the state? This one cuts off part of Isle Royale. Rmhermen 04:19, May 11, 2004 (UTC) Made my own and uploaded it. Rmhermen 20:36, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mitten, not glove

Gloves have five fingers. Mittens do not. The Lower Peninsula is therefore shaped like a mitten, not a glove. I made the correction.

What about the pinkie? You can't leave out Leelanau! (Kidding) mdkarazim 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

State Shoreline

"Michigan has the longest coastline of any state except Alaska" - does a lake shore count as a 'coastline'?!? Should this be re-worded? - 82.39.129.86 13:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I suspect the claim for Michigan having the longest is based on freshwater lakeshore as opposed to seacoast. If that is the case, the statement should be qualified. older≠wiser 01:00, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the state website says: " World Book Encyclopedia (v.13, p.500 of the 2000 edition) states that Michigan's shoreline, at 3,288 miles is "more than any other state except Alaska. This includes 1,056 miles (1,699 kilometers) of island shoreline." [1] Rmhermen 13:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Even a rough estimate from a map suggests that World Book 2000 is incorrect. Reliable figures for all states are provided by NOAA.

According to NOAA, Michigan is ninth:

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/welcome.html

Alaska	      33,904
Florida	       8,426
Louisiana      7,721
Maine          3,478
California     3,427
North Carolina 3,375
Texas          3,359
Virginia       3,315
Michigan       3,288

Atlantic US   28,673

--posted by 137.201.242.130 14:40, Feb 25, 2005

And NOAA also says that Michigan has the "world's largest freswater coastline". [2]. older≠wiser 22:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I know this discussion has languished for two years but a recent link edit here got me to thinking. Isn't there something a little odd about those NOAA statistics? Follow the link and have a look. Michigan - 3,288 miles of coastline. Yeah, okay - it *is* two peninsulas surrounded by water. But Florida - more than *eight thousand miles* - twice across the country. There are even more interesting measures in states further down the list, like Washington State (3,026) and Georgia (2,344). I understand that you don't measure coastlines with a straightedge, but these numbers really don't fit with common sense. I suppose these figures include islands (lots of them in Georgia and Washington) and that's probably what accounts for these apparent anomalies. This is almost like the "area" issue - the numbers are accurate but really don't answer the question most people are likely to be asking. Comments? JohnInDC 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From just looking at a map that data does not look right.

The NOAA statistics include things like the Bayou in louisiana which is basically endless, and florida includes what I believe to be all of the everglades, another basically endless coast line. Even much of Alaska's "coastline" is artic ice and not really a coast line at all. What we should be measuring is a relatively flat line along the coasts of the states. Maine for instance has hundreds maybe thousands of very narrow inlets that inflate it's numbers. The same is true for virginia, north carolina, and texas. Strunke 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Virginia and the Carolinas (Texas too) have those funky banks that would double (at least) their shorelines, if you measure oceanside and then the entire perimeter of the (often very large) inlet. I share the sense that coastline measurements become kind of meaningless, or at least very confusing, when every 1000 foot inlet gives you 2000 feet of "shoreline" in place of the 100 feet that amounts to its opening to the ocean, but I don't know where more sensible statistics might be kept. (My own definition would be, if you can hit a 3-wood to the opposite side, you're not looking across "shoreline" and anything further inland shouldn't be counted.) JohnInDC 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, from the Michigan state web site, Michigan is 3rd of the continental US in terms of coastline (combined Great lake and Ocean) http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-whm-eac-confundbenchmark.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.133.96 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Metric system

Please don't use miles, gallons, etc... These units are outdated and used only by a very small minority of people in the world. This is an Encyclopedia, we are in 2005, the generally accepted measurement system is the metric system, not this obsolete miles and so. By writing in miles, you make articles hard to understand for 95% of the world population --Ocollard 11:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No, this goes precisely against a long-standing convention on Wikipedia. In articles about places, it is customary to use the primary units of measurement of that place. While it is unfortunate, metric measurements are not very familiar to U.S. readers. Metric equivalents should be provided parenthetically however. older≠wiser 11:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

About the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:

"For units of measure use SI units, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common units of km/s/Mpc rather than its SI unit of Hz); see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Wikipedia Style for large numbers is 10,000. "

"Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another on the same page. "

In the Michigan article, we have units in metres in the frame on the right, and units in miles in the article itself. I don't understand how you can interpret that the Manual of Style supports this --Ocollard 16:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Current manual of style, debate, and more debate commonbrick 16:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

None of these link impose an old measurement system. The manual of style does say the metric system should be used. --Ocollard 17:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither system is imposed. "The issue of whether all units should be metric (SI), Imperial, or American units is being debated at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate." [3] commonbrick 18:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Metric and Imperial are in there together now. For discussion on if it should be Imperial (Metric) or Metric (Imperial) go here. commonbrick 18:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

In the United States, the English system is far from "obsolete"--it is the dominant system in the country. To use only kilometers and such for an American article is as ridiculous as using only feet/gallons/ounces/etc. in a French article. Using both systems for wiki articles is a logical compromise. Funnyhat 04:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ocollard, the United States currently has a plurality on the internet and in wikipeida. And as much as you may not like it, many people on the internet do not like and do not use the metric system. The United States system isn't wrong, it isn't inferior, and it has served us for a very long time. We will not change for wikipedia, so wikipedia has to change for us. Both systems MUST be shown since more Americans will see this article than any other nation. Live with it. -Just a passing soul :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.176.40 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"These units are outdated and used only by a very small minority of people in the world." They are used by everyone in Michigan. And we rock. 82.93.133.130 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to use both at the same time 60miles/100km etc. Just like that. It saves an unnecessary arguement. I live about 6 miles/10km from work. Ooo! So complicated. Maybe there is a page or site showing a table for this. (Here kilometer) Jjmillerhistorian 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolverine state

The article for State mammals says that Michigan has two state animals, but the Michigan article says only a deer. A deer? Which is right?

What idiot state government would trade teeth for tail? Next thing ya'know Wisconsin will be the "Cow state". Oh my goodnes... Shenme 02:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wolverine is not an official state symbol. I believe it is merely an informal nickname. older≠wiser 02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The whitetail deer was made an official mammal (another project imposed on schoolchildren to get them interested in government) somewhat recently. The history of "wolverines" is here [4]. It is also the official mascot of U of M. In any case, why be the Wolverine State when we have no wolverines?? (Although there are some biologists who swear there's a female roaming the eastern (!) part of the state... but she's an exception). Gaviidae 09:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Education

Wiki might not be the best place for this, but I wanted a discucion about this. http://mi.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-29939-132123--,00.html .

I'm not sure I'm for upping the standards, but I'm writing an article for my school about these new standards. What I want from this discusion is outside opinions, possible statistics (how many michiganders go to college, graduate, stuff), ect and stuff.Hakusa - Wiki addict:

Sports victories

Perhaps this belongs on a different page. It seems to be overshadowing the next section. Rmhermen 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to separate page several weeks ago. Forgot to note it here. --EMU CPA 07:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry map

This was added by User:Chaldean

Yellow
Light Blue
Dark Red
Light Red
Dark Blue
Silver
Light Green
Purple
Light Purple
(Native Americans) Dark Green
(African) Black
A mix of everything - white

This has several problems. First it is too large. Second many people will not understand what the flags mean. Third it is not clear why multiple flags are listed for some colors. Fourth, the is no indication of what the metric is? Is this showing the leading ancestry/ancestries in the county or the highest incidences of that ancestry in the state? Rmhermen 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Mackinaw County which is dark green indicating Native American. The article on it states: "80.07% White, 0.20% African American, 14.21% Native American, 0.31% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.28% from other races, and 4.92% from two or more races. 0.90% of the population are Hispanic or Latino" So Native American is not the leading "ethnic group". Rmhermen 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I note an entirely different map (on page 8) of this PDF from the U.S. census. Rmhermen 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of the map above? Unless a more detailed explanation of the sources and methodology supporting the map is provided, it looks to be original research. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry for not finishing it. I wanted to write something in the end, but didn't have time. I made this on my own time. 1. This is based on: [[5]] which looks like is very close to the Census of 2000. 2. Mackinaw has a American Indian tribes - 16% and also Chippewa - 16%. I consider the chippewa with the "Native Americans." 3. What I wanted to write in the end was: Remember, not one county has a 50% majority of a specific ethnicity, as Michigan is very multi ethnic throughout the state, but does have a German more then any other ethnicity in almost all of the state.

And as for the 2 flags, what is meant is that its split between the two ethnics, as in they both are about the same. And what do you mean "people would not understand the flags"? lol. I think the people that read wiki are smart enough to get it. I mean I know we Americans don't know our geography all that well, but surely we all know what a German flag looks like. The map can be made smaller if people wanted it so to be.

A mix of everything - white

Yellow
Light Blue

Dark Red
Light Red
Dark Blue
Silver
Light Green
Purple
Light Purple
(African) Black
(Native Americans) Dark Green

Remember, not one county has a 50% majority of a specific ethnicity, as Michigan is very multi ethnic throughout the state. In fact, the highest single ethnicity reported in a county (Huron) stands in as only a 36% (German.) But one can see how German heretige is spread predomintly throughout state.

If you guys want more suggested, its more then fine. Chaldean 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Chaldean 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So definitely original research. And your methods don't wash - according to the census Mackinaw county is 14.21% Native American - you can't count them twice and the site you list has German and Irish as the only mentioned ancestry for that county. And you map doesn't match the map prepared by the Census Bureau itself - which show Mackinaw as majority German. Rmhermen 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This would be a nice map, if it was based on data that we can all agree on (say, the data people have been citing throughout this thread). I'm not sure that it would count as original research, if it was just a representation of the census data (ALL the census data, not just specific nationalities). Also, the images and text are reversed -- you should have a color block representing the colors on the map, and a name for the nationality (i.e. "[blue] - Finnish"). Good luck with it! -- dcclark (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of the substantial percentage of population with British ancestry (English, Scots, Welsh), which should be right behind the German. --Fire Star 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a problem with using self-reported data such as that collected by the Census - first one-fifth of those asked refused to answer, then 20 percent of those who did claimed to be "Americans". Another twenty percent listed multiple ancestries. And most researchers consider British ancestry to be underrepresented because it is either too old to be remembered or just not as fashionable as recent immigrants with more distinctive folkways. Rmhermen 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"And your methods don't wash - according to the census Mackinaw county is 14.21% Native American" Did you read what I wrote? I added "Indians" and "Chippewa" for Machikaw and got 32%, which is far more then German. The map looks different from the one that was posted PDF because its more indetail - which is good, right? I don't understand what problems their is here, can anybody please be specific so that I can fix it? Chaldean 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chippewa are the Indians mentioned in the group Native Americans; you are counting every Indian twice. Your map is not an enhancement of the Census map - it conflicts with it for a number of counties. Rmhermen 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a version of the Census's map. Notice the differences. You have two counties with Native American - the census has none. You have three counties with German first, Dutch second - the Census shows these as Dutch, you have one more Finnish first than the Census has. You have three counties as a mix of everything - the census has them as German. Rmhermen 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a nice, but it seems to conflict with the Census map, and given that its original research AND conflicting with the Census map, its fighting a real uphill battle for inclusion on the article page (if thats the intention). Also, I'd agree with earlier comments that the flags should be removed in favor of names (Dutch, German, etc.). If you don't know which country a particular flag represents, going out to find a 'flag key' to match a country to a flag is a lot of extra effort when you can simply write the name instead to make it easier for readers. JSDA (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pelee Island

Please explain why a reference to Pelee Island is continually being inserted here. Isopropyl 06:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference of Peele Island is anecdotal. The article's (your?) reference that Detroit "is actually due north of Canada" grossly misleading and incorrect. Not much is due north of Canada. Detroit, Michigan is merely completely north of 41.7 degrees North (the latitude Canada's southern most utilized land mass).

Detroit is south of Canada, but not south of it's southern most point, and in this loose grouping is at least accompanied by Boston and Seattle.

Please sign your edits. Are you from Detroit? The city is geographically north of Windsor, Ontario. I understand your concern, and believe it to be slightly nitpicky. You drive south when you cross the Ambassador Bridge into Canada. Perhaps you should change the article to reflect this, rather than geographic location if the sentence arouses such ire in you. In any case it's not useful to include the Pelee Island reference. Isopropyl 06:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the geography. What's wrong with a link to information NOT pertaining to the U.S. and/or Michigan? A reference to Peele Island is perfectly appropriate.

Anyway, This is not a matter of nitpickiness.

Please don't argue a matter of fact. When referencing a small portion of land (relatively) such as Detroit, comparison should only be made to a comparable region, not to the entire political boundary (of which, Canada is larger than the U.S., btw). By this logic, Canada is due south of the U.S. ... Oh yes, this makes perfect sense – if qualified properly. How about “Detroit is due North of a very, very, very small part of Canada.”

Simply put: That specific line of the article was incorrect. I corrected it. You removed the edit, twice. If you want to put it back, go ahead, if you don't, I don't care. Thousands (or millions ;) ) of mislead Michiganians (Americans) wouldn't make any difference.

SKSK

You made it more incorrect by cliaming that it is only due north of the southernmost point in Canada and a island to boot. It is north of a section of mainland Canada and an important Canadian city. Rmhermen 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When I read "due north of Canada" my mind thinks of the relation to the nearest border. In the case of Seattle, I'd definitely have to drive north in order to get to Vancouver. From Detroit I'd drive south to Windsor, Ontario. Also, the southermost point of Canada is not Pelee Island; see the Pelee article. Isopropyl 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't matter what your mind thinks, it matters what the truth is. This isn't so subjective. Very clearly, Canada's furthest inhabited point south is at Latitude 41.7 Degrees North, Peele Island, and extends all the way up to Ellesmere Island at Latitude 83.1 Degrees North.

As stated, I know the geography. I am well aware that Middle Island is further south. In my original alteration I noted Peele Island the southern most usable (inhabited) part of Canada. It is not worthwhile to mention uninhabated areas, in my opinion. With regards to your flimsy "I drive, therefore it is" argument, the bridge could have been easily place slightly south-east of its current location, then you'd argue "OMG, Windsor is EAST OF DETROIT!".

Simple Logic: If Canada extends from 41.7 to 83.1 (relative to the DAMNED POLES, not from some place you drive your car from) and Detroit is ~42.3. Detroit is not North of Canada.

Be specific, not misleading...return the edit to something the community will appreciate.

SKSK

But it really is north -geographically. And it is the one of the only places where a piece of Canada is due south (along a line of latitude) of a piece of the U.S. We are not talking about places that are simply farther north than other places. (Ketchikan, Alaska is due north of the Queen Charlotte Islands - but there are no major populations in either of those places. There are a couple of very small areas along the northern Maine border with even less population.) Rmhermen 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yarrrrrrr, ye be missin' th' point, arrrr. The word "Canada" represent a mass of land far greater than what is refered to. I'd be satisfied with "...due north of a teenie tiny itty bitty little part of the southern most tail of South-Western Ontario, Canada".

As I said, qualification is very important. Without context, they are just words.

SKSK

From what I can follow of this, it appears that you're the one missing the point here. older ≠ wiser 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to clear this up to appease both sides of the issue. Yes, everyone (I hope) knows that all of Canada is not south of Detroit, however it is noteworthy that to reach Canada from Detroit, one goes south, and vice versa. I think that was all that was meant to be conveyed. --EMU CPA 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Proximity to water

I deleted the recent addition that a person in Michigan is "...never more than 6 miles (10 km) from a body of water." I'd like to see a source for this. In particular, consider the central counties such as Gratiot which have no natural bodies of water, unless you count small streams and ponds. If we count those, this claim could be made for almost every place on earth. -- dcclark (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is the state government website[6] Rmhermen 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'm still very surprised at the "6 miles" statistic... somehow I don't think the Blackberry Drain in Gratiot should count as a real body of water. :) -- dcclark (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few modest lakes within Gratiot County: Halfmoon Lake in the extreme northwest corner, two mill ponds on the Pine River near Alma and St. Louis, and Rainbow Lake in Fulton Township -- any place in the county is within six miles of one of those. older ≠ wiser 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Michigan Olympic Medalist

If you guys can help me out with this page, List of Olympic Medalists from Michigan, it would be greatly appriated Chaldean 04:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Driver's Licenses

A recent edit to Julian calendar (which I've reverted, pending more info) stated: "The state of Michigan encodes the issue date of motor vehicle licenses, right on the face of the user's card, with a Julian date." I suspect this "Julian date" is the seven-digit Julian date, not a month, day, year in the Julian calendar. Which kind of "Julian date" is encoded on driver's licenses in Michigan? An example would be useful. — Joe Kress 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just pulled out my license to look at it. There's a bunch of numbers on here; I suspect that the twelve digit number is my license number, and there's a six digit code at the bottom that's bracketed by two letters. I don't think that's a date though. Isopropyl 02:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The seven-digit Julian date I refered to would now be in the neighborhood of 2453810 (15 March 2006), or it could be the truncated five-digit Modified Julian date which lops off the first two digits, leaving 53810. If it is six digits, it would be 453810. For earlier issue dates, subtract 365 for each year (366 in leap years), so 15 March 2000 would be 2451619, or 451619, or 51619. Does your six-digit number begin with 45? — Joe Kress 03:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The six-digit number does not begin with 45. I don't think it's a date. Isopropyl 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The 6 digit number on the lower righthand corner of your license is a security number used by financial companies (well, supposed to) for people starting new accounts per the Dept of Homeland security. I learned this when working on becoming a financial representative. We were to record that number along with other account information when adding a new client. I assumed then that this was to track people who may be laundering money to banned organizations. Gaviidae 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Trolls"

Can anyone explain this comment in the introduction?

Residents of the upper peninsula are called "Yoopers" (UPers) and residents of the lower peninsula are called "trolls" (presumably because they live "under the bridge").

-Isopropyl 06:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See Three Billy Goats Gruff, a once-popular folk-tale (perhaps it still is, I'm not sure). Although the Troll article barely mentions it, is seems a fairly common meme that trolls often live under a bridge. The sentence you mention could probably be improved though (and perhaps some better references provided for those unfamiliar with the folkloric origins. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As one who has lived in Michigan, upper and lower, for his entire life, this is entirely true (you especially hear this phrase in the UP). As a quick reference, check [7] and [8]. Luckily, the reference still stands in a more appropriate place, later in the article. -- dcclark (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To complicate this more for you... I heard the expression "Flat-Landers" used by people who live in the Northern Lower Peninsula to describe people from Southeast Michigan (Metro Detroit).—MJCdetroit 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard "flatlanders" used in da UP to describe Wisconsinites. It makes sense in both contexts -- much of WI and most of southern lower Michigan are very flat. I think "flatlanders" is mentioned in the (not exactly stellar) Yooper dialect article. -- dcclark (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simply that people always need a slightly derogatory way to refer to near neighbors. Yoopers call us "trolls" and have for at least decades. We call them "yoopers" but also the double-meaning'd "fudge-packers" (which should mainly refer to Mackinaw Island and not the UP because it's known for fudge), but then the people in both the UP and Northern Lower call southerner Michiganians "fudgies" which specifically refers to tourists, as they come up for the fudge (good fudge in Traverse (murdck's) and Mack Island and just on the other side of the bridge). Ask a troll what's in the UP and they'll say, Yoopers, deer, black flies, pasties, and fudge. Gaviidae 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Menominee for a year and when I told someone I was from the lower peninsula they would call me a troll. Darn yoopers. Of course, Menominee is right next to those cheese heads. It's just a place for fudgies to fill up on gas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjmillerhistorian (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC). OOPS I FORGOT, THANKS FOR EXPOSING ME Jjmillerhistorian 11:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This remark is out of place in the introduction. It might be better served placed somewhere else in the article, or perhaps in a different article. Max 19:49 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Robins, Cardinals?

I thought I remembered the MI legislature changing the state bird from the robin to the cardinal a few years ago (supposedly because cardinals don't leave the state in the winter. . .), but both Michigan and American Robin say that the robin is the state bird of MI. Is that wrong, or am I just making things up? Juicy 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the robin is no longer officially the state bird of Michigan, but because this fact was overlooked, it has been celebrated as such. Here's an article from the State News (off MSU campus in East Lansing) talking about the discovery that House Concurrent Resolution 30 of 1931, which made the robin the state bird, actually expired in 1933. I wanted to find the actual resolution in the Michigan government archives so that I could edit that part of this article, but I couldn't locate it anywhere. Therefore I don't know if it should actually be changed or not. (PS The Kirtland warbler is being lobbied for a replacement when they actually give Michigan an 'official' state bird again.) ZyPfenix 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact Check...

In fact, they did keep Michigan for a while after they realised their error. Aboriginal peoples, under the leadership of Chief Tecumseh, rose up against American in the Battle of Fallen Timbers near present-day Toledo, Ohio, in 1784. When Quebec was subsequently split into Lower and Upper Canada (modern Quebec and Ontario) in 1790, Michigan was part of Upper Canada and held its first democratic elections in 1791, to send delegates to the new provincial parliament at Kingston.

Can Anyone supprt this claim? Keeperoftheseal 06:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation for this (and made some corrections). [9] older ≠ wiser 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Human Development Index

What is the Human Development Index for Michigan? Also, if one is not officially published, what are the statistics that would be used to compute it? mdjkarazim 2006 May 15 12:30 (EST)

Fact box....

The ranking of 11th in the Fact box is supposed to be 11? The water percentage included in the box indicates it should be 10th overall including water not 11th. I changed it but it was changed back indicating it was land area...... - Strunke

Also here is the sources I used, both from the state governments of each

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntyhus_hist.htm

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_lm_MiB_156795_7.pdf

--Phizzy 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Width and length.

Anyone know the actual width and length of Michigan? On the Wikipedia page, it states: Width 239 miles (385 km) Length 491 miles (790 km)

Elsewhere on the Internet, similar figures are posted. However, at the "Michigan in Brief" page at http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-15481_20826_20829-56001--,00.html, it states: Length: 456 miles Width: 386 miles

Fairly big difference, especially in width. I believe the michigan.gov figures are correct, though.

--Phizzy 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Latitude and longitude.

I find latitude of Michigan to range from 41°41'N to 48°18'N, and the longitude 82°7'W to 90°25'W.

Extreme southern point: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=41.696070&longitude=-84.806000

Extreme northern point: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=48.305900&longitude=-88.369670

Extreme eastern point: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=43.591000&longitude=-82.122750

Extreme western point: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=46.566090&longitude=-90.418090

I would favor the michigan.gov figures as well. Just try to make a reference/citation of the source and don't forget to have a conversion to kilometres for all our friends in Europe. MJCdetroit 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the smaller figures may be only for the lower peninsula. The larger ones (from michigan.gov) make much more sense, including the UP. -- dcclark (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is very misleading to rank Michigan as the 11th largest state, i.e., to include its water area. Michigan and other coastal states or Great Lakes states have the advantage of adding arbitrary amounts of water territory to their area totals. Without water area Michigan would be the 22nd-largest state (behind Georgia), at 56,803.8 square miles. I think that states should be ranked solely on their land area. Backspace 20:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Misleading" may be too strong, but I think most people dp think in terms of Land Area; and when a ranking by Total Area results in this kind of anomaly I think the basis of measurement should be specifically noted. For most states it probably doesn't matter much but when you include water, the water is something like 41% of Michigan's area! JohnInDC 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the percentage of its total area that is actually water area, Michigan is the champion, but not by much; in fact, for practical purposes it is a tie between Michigan and Hawaii. Here are the top states and their water area as a percentage of their total area. All percentages are calculated from official United States Census Bureau 2000 census numbers:

Michigan 41.267%
Hawaii 41.244%
Rhode Island 32.369%
Massachusetts 25.719%
Delaware 21.521%
Maryland 21.221%
Florida 17.988%
Wisconsin 17.081%
Louisiana 15.968%
New Jersey 14.951%
Alaska 13.768%
New York 13.458%
Maine 12.783%
Connecticut 12.601%
District of Columbia 10.152%

However, for the ultimate champions on American land, one must look to the U.S. overseas territories, all of which are small islands:

Northern Marianas Islands 90.935%
American Samoa 86.753%
U.S. Virgin Islands 81.866%
Guam 63.220%
Puerto Rico 35.683%

At the other end of the scale are the "dry" states, inland states that do not have much internal water surface:

New Mexico 0.192%
Arizona 0.319%
Colorado 0.361%

The United States as a whole has 6.764% of its "official" Census Bureau total area as water area.

Michigan, which is an ordinary-sized state (the 22nd-largest state in land area), has the second-largest water area of all states, behind only Alaska. This huge addition raises its rank to 11th largest when water area is also considered, a rise of 11 places. No other state rises more than 4 places in rank when water area is added to land area: Florida (#26 to #22) and Hawaii (#47 to #43) both rise 4 places, and New York (#30 to #27) rises three places. The biggest drops are in four states that actually drop 3 places in rank when water area is also counted: Idaho, Missouri, Georgia, and Iowa. Backspace 06:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, exactly, shouldn't the area under water be counted? Michigan's borders do indeed extend out into the Great Lakes, so they should be counted in the total area. Given your criteria, a state's area is continually in flux. Following a thunderstorm, I suppose the area shrinks, correct? Phizzy 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I suppose it's because state boundaries in water are much less relevant day-to-day than boundaries on land. Not that many people spend time in the middle of Lake Michigan, really, and until the advent of GPSs even those folks would have had a hard time telling you precisely what state they were in. Yes, yes, yes, Michigan "extends" so many miles into Lake Michigan and that part of Lake Michigan is part of the "state", but really. Can you go for a stroll on it? Do the roads change when you cross the border, do the gas prices go down? So I'd say, the reason you don't colloquially count large bodies of water like the Great Lakes is because the figure is almost utterly irrelevant to how most people actually do, or might, experience the state. JohnInDC 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, does this mean, we shouldn't also count mountainous or desert areas? As with the Great Lakes, there are vast areas of mountainous and desert areas that are uninhabitable. Not many people spend time in the middle of the mountains or deserts, and there aren't very many roads, gas stations, or other signs of civilization for thousands of square miles in these areas. Phizzy 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's examine your suggestion. Tell me what you would count, and not count, in Wyoming, and why.

Less facetiously, you are kind of missing my point, which is that for most people, in practical terms, a state's boundary ends at the shoreline. And the "boundary" 45 or so miles out in the middle of a lake is just an arbitrary delineation. "Land area" is a much more useful common sense indicator of a state's size. Of course, lines in the middle of a desert are arbitrary too (though I would note that back when they were laying those lines out you still had to *cross* those deserts and mountains), but as they say you've got to draw the line somewhere; and as I suggested above, you may as well measure area up to that line in the desert or the mountains if for no other reason than any other rule is ridiculous. JohnInDC 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the difference between an arbitrary line (border) over water and an arbitrary line over the desert? Phizzy 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that question is a bit too metaphysical for me. Instead I'll just say that people intuit the size and shapes of states by their land areas, not by water areas that they may happen to include, and for that reason most discussions of "area" should default to land, rather than total, area. Michigan is an excellent example. You ask to see a map of Michigan and don't get some amorphous blob taking in half of three Great Lakes that's 1/4 water, but instead the familiar two peninsulas and a mitten. In the minds of most people, *that* is Michigan. Telling someone that's the largest state east of the Mississippi is downright confusing. It verges on trickery.

By the way, you asked me about states shrinking in a thunderstorm. No, they don't. The numbers are too small. But after a 2 foot rise in water levels due to global warming? You bet they shrink. I gather you believe they don't? JohnInDC 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can call it trickery, but others (including the federal government) will say it is simply a FACT. Michigan IS the largest state east of the Mississippi River, and by a large margin. See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US26&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-format=ST-7&-_sse=on

TOTAL area: 96,716.11 square miles.

On the other hand, Georgia often claims to be the largest. However, see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US13&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1_ST7&-format=ST-7&-_sse=on

TOTAL area: 59,424.77 square miles.

Actually, Floria at 65,754.59 square miles and Wisconsin at 65,497.82 square miles are also significantly larger than Georgia. Phizzy 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess all I can say in response is that there are a lot of "facts" that are really pretty misleading when viewed in the context in which most people think. For instance - to use another local example - it's a "fact" that Canada is south of Michigan. And indeed it makes for a nice little trick question: "What's the first country you hit if you draw a line straight south of Detroit?" Most people name some place in South America, of course, and they are surprised, and amused, by the fact that it's Canada. It's a fact. But it does not mean that we routinely describe Canada as a country lying to the south of the United States. It's *true* but it's not useful in any day-to-day, commonplace sense. JohnInDC 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - a cute, related geography question relates to Florida: If you draw a line straight south from Miami, where does it hit South America?" Answer - it doesn't. And it misses the continent *entirely to the west*. Perhaps we should start calling it "East America". JohnInDC 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We all now know that Michigan is the largest state east of the Mississippi when you include water area, and that Georgia has the largest land area east of the Mississippi. The only question left is which is more relevant to a state's size for ranking purposes, its total area including water, or only its land area. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer here because the criteria for determining rank will be defined in the list. I support the side that says only land area should be considered. Either that or we could have two different lists.

By the way, JohnInDC, I'm not exactly certain that a line drawn straight down from Miami would not fall on Ecuador and/or Peru. It would be close in any case. Anyway, you have stated my point quite well on the exclusion of water area. Backspace 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk about coastline and land area cracks me up. For starters, some don't want to count the coast line because it's a lake boundary. Second, others don't want to count the total area because it's a lake boundary. So are the lakes simply void as space itself? I must ask: does Georgia (and all other states for that matter) subtract the total area of their inland lakes when figuring land area? Doubtful. A boundary is a boundary. If the lakes were drained tomorrow, the land that is left bare would be under Michigan's jurisdiction. Area is area. Let me put it another way. If half of your yard floods, does the size of your property shrink and grow with the ebb and flow of the tides? Furthermore, can I legally water ski in your front yard? Michigan's LAND area can't accurately be measured at any given point, regardless, because of the ever changing volume of the lakes, thus changing the coastline dramatically. If you don't believe me, visit the Saginaw Bay where Lake Huron is historically low and the coastline is one-quarter to three-quarters of a mile out from where it was 20 years ago. This might not seem like a big deal, but when you translate that type of recession across miles of coastline, that adds up to be a substantial chunk of real estate. The problem here that people find hard to accept is that our Great Lakes have multiple properties. Parts are external to the country, which makes it easy for some to view them as shoreline, but they are wholely internal to the state. Our cultural and political frames of mind fight the urge to consider a body of water smaller than the country itself (especially internal bodies of water) to be coastline, but from a state stand point they are the state's legal boundary. One question I do have, however, is who has jurisdiction over the 12 miles out to sea that completely surrounds the coast of our country? Is it the state, or is it the federal government? If it is the state, the I'm all for counting that area as part of the state itself. If it is some kind of "district" such as Washington D.C., then no way. Do you see what I'm driving at? I guess in summation I'll close with saying that Michigan has a coastline of water because it is a physical attribute, and the water boundary is included in the total area because it is a political boundary. SNAP Subterranean 09:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. I argued some of your same points (see "Given your criteria, a state's area is continually in flux. Following a thunderstorm, I suppose the area shrinks, correct?"). I can't figure out why some people arbitrarily think it isn't proper to count the areas covered with water. Why don't those same people arbitrarily not count desert areas? Phizzy 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Education...

I am working on creating Wikis for all the colleges and universities that do not have one yet. Using mostly whatever is on the school's websites. Any help would be good because there are a lot and I don't have any good info on them myself.

Important Cities and Towns

I think many cities and towns are important in Michigan, but as the list on the article grows, it decreases in value. I think we need some sort of standard. There is probably someone who thinks that Elsie, Michigan is an important town, but adding to the list would seem silly to most. Every town has some sort of "claim" to fame, even Elsie has its annual Dairy Festival.Segelflugzeugwettbewerber 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest limit it to the top ten largest; ten otherwise important and losing the wealthiest list entirely. Rmhermen 18:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Lake Ann an important city (actually, it is a village)? It is listed under "Other important cities". Phizzy 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to pare down the list a bit - it was beginning to seem as though every town that had a slogan or could boast some interesting historical tidbit was being added. I freely admit to having applied no fixed standard for inclusion and welcome further tweaks - though if anything I'd suggest making the list shorter still. JohnInDC 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I took Romulus back out. It has one claim to fame - the airport - and in my opinion that doesn't amount to enough. If the list isn't going to be debased I think it should be confined to places that are important or noteworthy in their own right, e.g., a manufacturing or tourist center, home to one or another truly notable person; or some other aspect that inheres in the town. Sure, millions of people travel through Romulus every year, but they don't even know it. JohnInDC 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I make sure Holland stays in there because it does have the 3rd largest flower festival in USA, but I agree with JohnInDc that Romulus doesn't have any claim except for having undeveloped land where someone decided to build an airport. BeckyAnne (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

People will always draw the line differently but I think that to qualify as "important" a city or town needs more than a slogan, or a modest geographical or demographic distinction. I've pared back the list to remove several recent additions that just didn't seem to me to really qualify as "important". (Ann Arbor gets removed because it's already in the 10 largest.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Weather, Climate

A Climate Section to this article is needed.Rich 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty:reaction against Canada, or Patrick Fitzpatrick

http://www.cuadp.org/history.html indicates that spectacular executions were also held in Detroit, but the unjust execution of Detroiter Patrick Fitzpatrick, who was later determined to be innocent, was a driving force. But the outrage seems to have been more related to injustice than to differentiation from Canadians.

I reverted your edit as it appears to be erroneous as phrased. Michigan organized a state government in 1835 and was accepted into the Union in 1837. It next to impossible that the state legislature's first act would have occurred in 1846. older ≠ wiser 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Geographical Designation

The change is made in consideration of lessening some of the US-Centric bias in the article, in particular how a reader without any familiarity with US culture or history would view the article. In an encyclopedia, especially in the intro, a reader's first instinct is to know WHERE something is-in a geographical sense that can relate to a map. I think most accurate Geographical Designation of Michigan's Location is being part of the Great Lakes Region. This is something that is readily apparent in a geographical sense when looking at a map. The term "Midwest", especially as it applies to Michigan is historical and cultural but the connotation of "Middle" and "West" would not make sense apart from a US-Centric view. The description "Midwestern" should of course stay in the article, but it should follow the geographical description. Agne 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Midwestern is correct, primary and linked. It is not a matter of US-centricity any more than Ontario or Essex articles are examples of Canadian-centrism or UK-centrism. I mean the East of England - what is that! Rmhermen 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, take a step back and view it through a pair of glasses that have no history or connection to the subject. On the simple account of looking at a Map would you think "Middle + West" or would you think Great Lakes Region? My only point is that the first description should be a geographically accurate one. Midwest (Especially as it is used here) is clearly a historical and cultural one. Even the Midwest page states that it's archaic. It should appear in the article and I think the compromise is fair. It is geographically accurate and it includes the Midwest. Agne 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also check the intro to the neighboring states - Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. If I saw Great Lakes Region I would quite likely think Africa as Great Lakes Region is not a clearly identified or common term for that region of the U.S. but is for that region of Africa. Why would someone be more likely to posit a Great Lakes region - presuming a knowledge of the Great Lakes than to think the Midwest which is a commonly used term? You also seem to have misread the Midwest article which clearly states that this is the ordinary, modern term for the region. Rmhermen 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things

What is the most common denominator for a reader from across the globe--A common history, a common cultural, or the ability to look at a map? (A map that shows the Great Lakes, BTW) What geographical location would best convey itself to a person who does not share our culture or history?
Secondly, the compromised change had the geographically accurate description followed by the historical/cultural description. It's a compromise that best maintains the encyclopedic integrity of the article because it doesn't wholly assume a US-centric bias with knowledge of history & culture. It assumes a Map--a simple assumption. For the benefit of education and to then make aware of the historical or cultural views, it includes a reference to the Midwest. What is your disagree with that compromise? Agne 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the revision. "Midwest" is idiomatic. Vague and imprecise too - Nebraskans always scoffed at my Michigander claim to Midwestern status. "Midwest" is a well established and well known idiom to be sure, but even a sound understanding of English won't help you figure out what it means. ("East of England" by contrast seems to pretty well mean what it says.) "Great Lakes Region" is more precise than Midwest and is capable of conveying information to someone who comes to the subject with no a priori knowledge. I'm guessing that a stranger looking at an unmarked map of the United States would stand a much better chance of identifying the "Great Lakes Region" than the "Midwest" -- JohnInDC 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do in the article, we need to be consistent. As Rmherman notes, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc. are also labeled as Midwestern. Here are my notes: 1) Having lived in Michigan for all my life, "Great Lakes Region" is almost never used except as a technical term for the watershed. 2) "Midwest" is used all the time, but a bit uncertain (as JohnInDC points out). 3) "Upper Midwest" is usually used to counter that argument. 4) "North Central United States" is perhaps the most geographically accurate term, and the one I would prefer. Finally, check the article for Midwest: it clearly designates Michigan and nearby states as part of the region. My suggestion is, use "northern central United States" and keep "Midwest" nearby in the lead. Edit: Also note that the "Midwest" article gives "North Central Region" as the US Census Bureau's preferred designation for the area, which it formerly designated "Midwest", and specifically does include Michigan. -- dcclark (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is the key and if the consensus shows that North Central US is more geographically accurate then Great Lake Regions, then I'm all for it. Midwest does carry cultural and historical signifigance so it should still have a place. My only contention is that for the sake of curbing the US-centric bias, the most geographically accurate description should be the first mention. It is very pertinent to notice that of the 9 major foreign language wiki, only the Portugese wiki even mentions Midwest. That is very telling of the US-centric bias in this article. I think we need to rise above this because ultimately this article is not written soley for Michigan natives nor even US citizens. It's written for all the english speaking world and we should be conscientious of that. Agne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an emerging consensus towards a revision outside of just having "Midwest" only. However, I think a broader spectrum would be more helpful in truly gauging consenus so I'm going to put in an RfC. Agne 06:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"East North Central" is the census division that includes WI, IL, MI, IN, and OH. It is considered the eastern half of the census region called the Midwest/North Central Region. I would use the more specific "East North Central" in describing what part of the United States Michigan is in. --Polaron | Talk 07:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My $.02 -- "Great Lakes Region" is relatively uncommon, usually used to describe environmental issues affecting the drainage basin. Except for Michigan, the majority of land in these states is not actually part of the drainage basin. "Midwest" in my estimation is by far the most common term used to desribe the region. older ≠ wiser 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Common in Michigan and common in the US. Common because of a shared culture and history. But beyond that scope, how common is it? Why does all but one of the major foreign wikipedias doesn't include the term in their articles on Michigan? Agne 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article inform readers about how the states describe themselves? At least in the case of Michigan, a reference to the Great Lakes would also be appropriate. But technically, Michigan is the only state in the Midwest for which the majority of its land area is actually part of the Great Lakes Region -- for all the other states, it is only a fraction of the land area. The governments of all of the states that border the Great Lakes have a stake in the lakes, but the majority of these other states do not closely identify with the Great Lakes region. Southern Ohio, Southern Indiana, Southern and Western Illinois, Western Wisconsin and Eastern Minnesota would likely more strongly identify with the rivers that flow through them than the Great Lakes. Similarly, large swaths in the central portions of these states have more in common with the Great Plains than with the Great Lakes. older ≠ wiser 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that an article about a state should include how the resident describe themselves. You will never see me take issue with that because it is very relevant to the state's history and culture. However, for the sake of encyclopedic integrity and to be conscientious of the fact that readers outside Michigan and the US will be reading this article, the first description in the article should be one that is the most geographically accurate and then followed by the historical and cultural terminology. It is not about identity, it's about geography. Now tell me, for someone who has no history or connect to Michigan and all they had was a simple map of the US, if you asked them to relate to that map what Michigan's geographical location is....would they relate to the "Midwest" or would they relate to the "Great Lakes" that surround the state? Agne 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The solution seems pretty obvious. "Michigan is a state in the east north central region of the United States, within an area colloquially referred to in the U.S. as 'the Midwest'". I'm sure someone can write it prettier than that but something along those lines includes a nice, literal, NPOV description of where Michigan physically is, with a nod to its well-known (US-centric) Midwestern characterization.JohnInDC 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange idea of what geography is. It is just a human description - Great Lakes is no less cultural than Midwest is. And it is most geographically accurate, not less. I could rewrite Washington (state) to begin by saying that it is on the Pacific Rim of Fire instead of that it was in the Pacific Northwest. This would be equally "true" geographically but not an improvement to the article. Rmhermen 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: JohnInDC's comment: No one except the census uses that terminology and it is certainly not clear in and of itself. Rmhermen 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Geography is just a "human description". Words are just human constructs too. That's not any reason to abandon clarity and common sense in employing them. "Midwest" is objectively confusing when applied to a state like Michigan, which is scarcely "west" of anything but the original 13 colonies. "East north central" - whatever its provenance - has the undeniable virtue of actually describing, in words people can understand, the approximate location of the state within the continental United States.JohnInDC 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest letting editors of the other "Midwestern" states' articles know about this debate, as it seems to affect them strongly as well. That would be Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois -- any others? -- dcclark (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)To Rherman: Again, I go back to the common denominator of any reader regardless of their background---a map. To use your example of Washington State, would this reader be able to relate to a Pacific Rim of Fire or to the Pacific Northwest? And to bring the topic back to it's subject matter, would a reader with no common histroy or common culture that bolsters a US-centric worldview, be able to use this common denominator of a simple map and be able to point to Michigan being part of the Midwest? Agne 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To dcclark, I dropped a note on the Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois page. Another Midwest state would be Missouri but their into first describes them geographically as a "Central State" before leading into the cultural references to the Midwest.Agne 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following draft, feel free to rip it up: "Michigan is a Midwestern state in the United States. Located in the northern central United States and nearly surrounded by the Great Lakes, ... (history of the name here)." -- dcclark (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate the attempt to clarify geography but the question begs to be asked, is having the cultural designation preceding the geographical designation the most encyclopedic? Agne 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this order makes sense. First, it is the order used for most states in the midwest (see Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin for example). Second, it is (as we've been discussing) by far the most commonly used term for people who actually live in the region. Finally, the phrasing is geographically accurate and consistent with other articles. In addition, this is Wikipedia: if the term "midwest" piques someone's curiosity (and the "north central" term in the next line isn't sufficiently explanatory), they can look up the details of the region by clicking the term. -- dcclark (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To get beyond a US scope, let's take into consideration how the English language articles on the states of another country are formatted. Australia

Queensland is a state of Australia, in the north-east of the country.
Victoria is a state located in the south-eastern corner of Australia.

India

Assam is a northeastern state of India with its capital at Dispur.
Kerala is a state on the tropical Malabar Coast of southwestern India.

Germany

Baden-Württemberg is a state of Germany in the southwestern part of the country to the east of the Upper Rhine.
The Free State of Thuringia lies in central Germany

This clarifies my point in that it is an unique bias that dictates that a US-centric cultural and historical designation should be used first in the introduction of a area before its geographical location is described. I do believe it is more encyclopedic to start with geography first and then go to the culture and history Agne 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the total effect of the first two (or three) sentences of the lead should be considered. If they collectively give a clear idea of where Michigan is located, and do not involve awkward grammatical constructions, then we should consider the lead to be good. For example, an article about City X, located in Country Y, which says that "City X is located in the Myimagino region of Country Y, on the far northern border with Country Z" would make perfect sense to me. I have no idea what the Myimagino region is, but the whole sentence gives a clear geographical location to City X. In addition, it includes a more regional definition which is useful to anyone familiar with the area. This isn't US-centric, it's a useful way to structure sentences. -- dcclark (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This proposed fix - "Michigan is a Midwestern state . . ." strikes me as a bit of a fudge in that "Midwestern" there can serve as a geographical or cultural modifier, depending on one's own inclination. As such it remains ambiguous. That said, the term *is* nicely highlighted, and clarification soon follows. As a compromise it works for me.JohnInDC 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Question for Agne, would you also advocate that the introductions for Ontario and Quebec identify them being in the Great Lakes Region? After all, geographically, both of those provinces are as aligned with the Great Lakes as any of the U.S. states (and perhaps more so than any of the states other than Michigan). If not, then why should the U.S. states be treated differently? older ≠ wiser 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Agne, but in my view if Ontario were described as being in "midwestern Canada", the "Great Lakes Region" might well be an improvement. As for Quebec - well, it doesn't border any of the Great Lakes at all, so I'd object on the same ground I would if someone suggested the designation for Kentucky or Vermont. JohnInDC 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) There should not be any difference in US States, Canada or any other country. In fact, Ontario and Quebec would be great additions to my example list from above. Both provinces start first with a geographical description that most accurately relate to a map. They don't begin with a cultural/historical designation like you are advocating with Midwest.

Ontario is the most populous and second-largest in area of Canada's ten provinces. It is found in east-central Canada and is considered one of the provinces of Central Canada.
Quebec is a Canadian province, in Eastern Canada.

Now the question is, Why should U.S. states be treated differently and have a cultural term like Midwest precede a more geographical description? What exempts us from following the lead of other countries or even of our fellow foreign language wikis? This is the sum and crux of the issue that is my concern about the US-centric bias that we are holding steadfast in this (and other) articles. Agne 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so do you think "east-central Canada" or "Eastern Canada" is more or less accurate as a geographical locator that Great Lakes region? Similarly, do you think East North Central States is more or less accurate as a geographical locator than Great Lakes region? Describing the location of any of the midwestern states other than Michigan as solely being in the Great Lakes region is inaccurate and misleading. The governments of the states participate in issues affecting the Great Lakes, but the majority of the area of these states have little connection to the Great Lakes.

But aside from that, I really do not see what the problem with describing the location is. There is a large map on each of the state articles that clearly shows the location of the state within the United States. The term "midwest" is the most culturally significant description of the region. And it is a linked term, so anyone unfamiliar with it can click on it and learn more. At present, apart from having no special cultural significance, the East North Central States article is pretty stubby. I think the primary description should remain as Midwestern United States. A link to the Great Lakes region and East North Central States can also appear as secondary descriptors. older ≠ wiser 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that the only real issue right now is, should "midwest" come before or after a geographical description? -- dcclark (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At least with me, that has been the contention all along. I have no issue with midwest being included in the article. As I've said many times before, it is very relevant and valid in the consideration of the region's culture and history. However, I ardently feel that it is improper and clearly US-Centric to place that in the order of the article where the reader whould naturally be looking for geographical information. When you read about a place, your first thought goes to "Where is it?" and we give our readers a map. The terminology that we use should properly be the ones that best relate to that map, of which "Midwest" does not. Whether it's North Central, East North Central, Great Lakes or even (as a strecth) Upper Midwest, can be discussed for consensus. Whichever it is, its inclusion in the begining followed by the cultural and historical designation of Midwest will best maintain the encyclopedic integrity of the article. This is abundantly evidence in the numerous other articles that I cited that go with geography first as well as the foreign wiki's own articles about Michigan. This article here, is the only one that is asking to be the exception rather then rule. Agne 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The map of the US with Michigan highlighted in red found at the top of the page provides a wealth of geographic information. Given the map's prominence, the argument that the cultural designation of "midwest" in the opening paragraph is misleading seems rather specious. Confiteordeo 05:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely with Agne. Describe the geographical location accurately first then state that it is part of the cultural region known as the Midwest. Midwest is not an accurate geographical location since Michigan is more east then west in the context of the continental United States. Since the Census Bureau uses East North Central, then that might be a reasonably good way to go for the geographic location. --Polaron | Talk 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the presence of a clarifying map is any reason to use idiomatic and confusing language where something more precise can be substituted. And it's not like anyone's trying to take "midwest" *out* of the article.JohnInDC 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To a degree the map with "Midwest" being the "geographical designation" could add to the confusion for someone apart from a US-Centric bias since the location on the map of Michigan doesn't really corelate to something "Middle" or "West". In a geographical context, it looks quite queer. However, in a cultural and historical context it makes perfect sense--hence the proper place for the "Midwest" reference to follow a more geographically accurate designation. Agne 11:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If "the location on the map of Michigan doesn't really corelate to something "Middle" or "West"," logic would dictate that we should eliminate the term entirely. There is a region of the US called the Midwest, and if anyone is confused about its definition, or why it's called the Midwest, they can click on the link and read the article. This terminology is just as confusing as "Mid-Atlantic," since all of those states are in the North, not the middle, or even Middle East, since the countries that comprise the region are in the western half of the Eurasian landmass, and in the west of Asia! Furthermore, the use of the word is no more US-centric than the use of the term "shire counties" on the England page is anglo-centric. Given the importance of the word "Midwestern" to the state's identity, it should remain in a prominent position. Confiteordeo 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as we all agree that both "midwest" and a geographical designation should appear in the lead, that the map makes the state's location quite clear, and that the primary goal is giving readers a clear idea of where the state is -- then my above suggestions meet those criteria. Without wanting to sound harsh, I do believe that most readers are intelligent enough that having "midwest" before "east north central" OR vice versa will not confuse anyone. In summary: my suggestion above works well. Let's use it. -- dcclark (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. The essential problem here is that the cultural / historical designation also appears to be a geographic description, but it is now archaic. When St. Louis was the westernmost point in the U.S., "midwest" for Michigan and nearby states made sense. Expansion has overtaken the description and rendered it misleading. Absolutely Michigan remains a "Midwestern" (capital-M) state and should be described as such, just like Maine is in New England and Nebraska is in the Great Plains. (Um, it is, isn't it?) We just have to be a tiny bit more careful and precise than the authors of those states' articles though, because of this ambiguity. And why *not*, for goodness' sake? The whole point of Wikipedia is to convey information as clearly and precisely as we can.JohnInDC 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Does everyone now agree that we can put both the Midwestern designation and the geographical location in the same sentence? I propose something like "Michigan is a Midwestern state of the United States, located in the east north central portion of the country." This is in line with how states in the New England region include both "New England" and "Northeast". I'll make the change unless someone objects or beats me to it. --Polaron | Talk 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

People may want to look at the new Encyclopedia of the Midwest which anchors the topic in hundreds of scholarly articles. Of course, the provinces in many countries have regional designations (Canada: Prairie Provinces; Britain: Midlands) Midwest has been the standard term since the 1890s. Rjensen 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone pretty much agrees that Michigan is typically, and historically as been, described as being in the "Midwest". The question has been whether that designation is inappropriately US-centric and thus potentially confusing or misleading to the non-US reader. The pros and cons of the issue have been pretty well beaten to death and everyone seems happy with the article as it's now composed. JohnInDC 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

An editor recently changed the demographics listings from "White, not Hispanic" to simply "White". The editor has also changed this in a couple other states that I know of. Since most US States articles currently list the "White, not Hispanic" percentages, I have initiated a discussion about this change at WP:STATE. I would ask that this section not be changed in this and other articles until the discussion has reached consensus. Gimmetrow 13:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

A line in the trivia section talking about using hands to describe where one lives in Michigan has the hands backwards. You use the back of your left hand to show where you live not the palm of the left hand. 203.205.112.55 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Scott Howell

I corrected them (left and right were switched around). Feel free to edit the article yourself though -- that's how Wikipedia works! :) -- dcclark (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I goofed that one. It's a good thing people notice errors like that. I was trying to edit the previous writing to be more specific. I think I might be lysdexic or maybe I was reading my hands in Arabic. Jjmillerhistorian 12:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always used the palm of my right hand. That way, if I need to make da Yupe, I can use my left hand. On teh internets I have seen a few pictures of people holding their right palms out too. So I'd say you can use either hand... just use the correct side of it :) 82.93.133.130 12:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I use the palm of my right hand too, but before I made the edit the article stated "residents often use their left hand or right palm". I thought it would be easier for others to understand it by looking at each hand without the "thumb" sticking out into Lake Michigan. I goofed and did both hands backward. Another thing I've noticed, when I make someone mad they show me where Mackinac City is while leaving the rest of Michigan behind. Most of it, anyhow. Jjmillerhistorian 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

People who live in Michigan actually hate being called "Michiganians", The governor used it during her initial election, but I believe it was out of ignorance --she's Canadian in origin. I haven't corrected it because it's too tough to source, I just felt it deserved notation. --Paintbait 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I've lived in Michigan my entire life, and DESPISE "Michigander" - it sounds like some sort of goose (which was the original intention). Most of the people I know agree, and much prefer "Michiganian". It may be something that one area of the state tends to prefer one form, and another prefers the other. --Scottr76 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I don't know many (if any) who prefer "Michiganian". It may be a regional thing, I'm in the UP. -- dcclark (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Palisade

In the section on the 1700s it states that Cadillac and his soldiers built a 200-square-foot palisade. This is probably a factual error, as a 200 square foot palisade would be laughably small. In fact, looking around me I think the three walls of my cubicle probably add up to more than 200 square feet. It might have been a 200 foot palisade, but since they would probably have built it more than a foot tall, I doubt the palisade was 200 square feet. Also, if it enclosed 200 square feet it would still only fit about three cubicles in it.

Does anyone know where we can check on the actual dimentions of said palisade?

200 square foot is, yes, laughably small. 200 foot square is not. I am guessing this is just a bit of sloppy editing and suggest we merely invert the two words pending some other definitive resolution. JohnInDC 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The History of Detroit page on this says it was one square arpent (1 arpent = 0.84628 acre = 3,424.77365 square meters = ). 1 linear arpent is 192 feet. That page also says 200 sq. ft. Sloppy conversion. Good catch. --Elliskev 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we say .85 acres? Or, should we stick with arpent? --Elliskev 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow you guys are quick, I found a mention of an arpent at [10] but got an edit conflict before I could post it. If we have an entry for Arpent it we might mention it and also give the acreage or 200 foot square. Squaregear 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a good catch - as often as this article's been vetted! I don't vote for arpent or acreage, but for "about 200 foot square" or some other language indicating approximation. For what it's worth, 192 feet is almost exactly 60 meters - though, we've been around and around on whether English or Metric are proper units here and English seems to have won out. JohnInDC 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stated another way, feet or meters (either) give a good sense of how big (small!) the fort was. "Arpent" and fractional acreage are both pretty obscure. JohnInDC 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, two sources list it as one square arpent (the acre of the day for the French). I think it should be in the article as such with a link to Arpent and a parenthetical note of 'slighlty less than an acre.' I'm not real concerned, though. As long as it's the right approximation of size. --Elliskev 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mm, yeah, plus if the thing wasn't square then 200 foot square isn't even correct. "Built a fort enclosing an arpent (about .85 acre, the equivalent of just under 200 feet on a side) . . ." might do it. JohnInDC 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Elliskev 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Economy

I found the section about the state's economy to be far, far too positive. Today Michigan has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates and new college graduates are fleeing the state in the hopes of better markets with which to launch careers. Also, how the heck the did the state receive the label of being the nation's 5th best business climate? One of the state's problems is that it has a poor business climate, which is one of the reasons for its relatively high unemployment rate. Perhaps Governor Granholm's lackeys are actively involved with editting the Michigan article?

I'm just guessing but it seems more likely that the heaviest contributors to the Michigan article will tend to be Michigan residents who (not surprisingly) like the state and are eager to speak well of it. Perhaps they've overdone it (I left a while ago and really am not qualified to comment) and if that's the case then perhaps a few balancing edits would be in order. JohnInDC 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The economy section was written mostly by one person, User:Thomas Paine1776, who also wrote most of the relentlessly positive article on the Economy of metropolitan Detroit. Most people who live in Michigan have a more realistic view of the economy here; Paine seems to be trying to use Wikipedia as a PR tool (for example, Michigan ranks somewhere close to last among american states in incoming tourist dollars because it's not on the way to anywhere -- from the economy section you'd think the opposite). I'm a Granholm fan and I think the gov. of detroit's done about as well as can be expected, but if I find out that Paine's employed by someone political I'll be pretty pissed off. A lot of people work really hard to make wikipedia a resource that people can rely on for, at the very least, a generally accurate picture of the world. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The claim of 5th best climate I believe came from a recent CNN money article. I can't stand Granholm, she's done nothing for the state, but there are some good things about the state and the business climate. It is the struggling manufacturing climate that is bring it all down. I also read something about Michigan having one of the most prepared economies for the future (what this mean I don't know). I didn't write any of this really but I will see if there is anything that seems like more wishful thinking then fact..... Strunke 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there really established connections between 9/11 and the economic troubles the big 3 have with their pensions? The section says:

Michigan has been able to manage recent economic hardships brought on by the severe stock market decline following the September 11, 2001 attacks which caused a pension and benefit fund crisis for many American companies including General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler.

I would say that these hardships are due to bad decisions done in better times, and with a completely different asian market in mind. --Ellipse 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the total ad assessment. If you look at the MI Economic Development Corp sites, they're even more realistic about it. They give actual unemployment figures, which aren't that great.71.132.128.11 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are there so many spammers

Why are there so many trolls and spammers? What in the human mind would make that a good use of time? Changing little things and substituting entire pages for idiocitiy? Michigan alone has had 5 or so over the past 5 days.....Strunke 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You have hit upon a fundamental question of the internet, my friend. Really, one per day isn't that bad though... -- dcclark (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection from an Administrator, hopefully they will be able to help. It's just getting out of hand...Strunke 05:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1910 Michigan

Who wrote the 1910 to present sub-section of the history section? It's so incredibly Detroit-heavy it sounds like it should be on the Detroit history page. It needs a complete rewriting, IMO. --Criticalthinker 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Try not to take offense

I pretty much feel that the entire page reads like junk. I don't know who wrote the majority of this thing, but it has no flavor whatsoever. Not to mention it has grammatical errors everywhere. Anyone opposed to a major overhaul? Subterranean 10:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not if it turns out better, no! I don't think it's all that bad but if you think you can improve on it substantially, then have at it! (This is of course just my opinion.) I would offer two suggestions - the first is to respect decisions arrived at here in Talk about substance or particular phrasings (for example, the "Midwest compromise"); and the second would be to undertake the revision a paragraph or section at a time to facilitate both refinements / tweaks by others, and comparisons with the prior version. I think it would create a lot of confusion were folks to simply arrive one day at an entirely new Michigan page. JohnInDC 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it too (you know, that Be Bold thing :). JohnInDC is definitely right though -- I'd suggest doing one section at a time if you can, and respect the various compromises here which are likely to flare up if changed. I would also appreciate it if you posted your specific complaints (other than spelling and grammar), for others to help with those problems. -- dcclark (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly take into consideration all serious concerns and suggestions on this talk page. I know it's ambitious, and it might take working on it in bits at a time, but certain parts are almost painful to read. A couple of the big concerns of mine are run-on sentences, and lack of creative language. I know this is an encyclopedia, but it could use a little love.Subterranean 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ditto.4.246.126.115 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agriculture

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas or problems with adding an agricultural section. Cherry's (leading state), Apples, etc....Strunke 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

good idea.4.246.126.115 00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Michigan in the Midwest?

I'm wondering why this article says Michigan is a Midwestern state when Detroit is only 615 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, and the whole country is over 3000 miles long. If you look at a map, it looks more like Michigan is in the Northeast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.141.204 (talk • contribs).

I'm fairly certain that there is a discussion on this somewhere in the archives. However, there's more to it than geography... sort of. There is a cultural aspect that stems from the different waves of settlement from east to west. The northeast was settled by a certain demographic at a certain time. Then, north-easterners moved west at a later time - joined by some new folks from different parts of Europe... And that's just my take on it. --Elliskev 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See "Geographical Designation" above. We've had a huge debate about this (also in Wisconsin) and finally settled it a few months ago. -- dcclark (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation in the intro is not the only one used. Mich-i-gin (gin like ginsu, not gin the drink) and Mich-i-gun are both used. Rmhermen 13:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford

The biography for Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Gerald Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his name has been nominated for deletion as being non-notable. The man was the reason that Ford stayed in Grand Rapids. You can make your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Trees

I just removed from the trivia list "3rd largest producer of Christmas Trees." This fact is also claimed in the article for Pennsylvania. Since it is sourced in the Pennsylvania article, but unsourced here, I have to assume PA is the correct tree grower. Skabat169 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I found:

$485 million The amount of money the nation’s Christmas tree farmers received from tree sales in 2005. Oregon was the top state in tree sales ($126 million), followed by North Carolina, Washington and Michigan. (Source: USDA Economic Research Service at <http://www.ers.usda.gov/>) Asher196 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think the Pennsylvania article is technically incorrect. The source [11] listed in the PA article lists the value for a combined 'Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops' (note, it is not ONLY Christmas trees). Another report [12], also from the NASS, lists the actual quantity of cut Christmas trees from each state, and shows that Michigan is third, behind Oregon and North Carolina, and PA is in fourth. I would consider the number of Christmas trees to be more significant than the dollar amount, as generally 'largest producer' title goes to the one that produces the largest number of an item. However, before restoring this, I will await any other comments.

Asher196's comment appeared as i went to save this, although that is more current data, I still feel quantity should determine 'largest producer'.--Scottr76 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I quickly added that in after watching a history channel show called "the states". It is accurate as of july, 2007 or so. And the source listed above is sufficient. Strunke 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Growning up, I spend summers on a 500 acre Christmas tree farm near Harrisville...ah the joys of going around and around in circles to trim one tree. Then realizing you have a thousand more to do before the end of the day... But I digress... Here is the list from the National Christmas Tree Association: http://www.christmastree.org/statistics_industry.cfm#findings. I would guess that North Carolina has more Christmas trees grown each year because NC's climate is more favorable to the growing of Fraser Firs than Michigan's and the Fraser fir is becoming a more popular tree. —MJCdetroit 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Michigan Economy

The state income tax is slated to increase to 4.35% when the new budget is enacted at the start of the fiscal year. Additionally, the budget standoff that forced a temporary government shutdown is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.21.232 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, but instead it looks like an issue of Newsweek. Does a state government shutdown that lasted for four hours in the wee hours of a Monday morning really belong in an encyclopedia? Suppose you are reading this article in ten years. It's noteworthiness fades quickly. Would you find this type of information in a traditional encylopedia such as Britannica? I doubt it. Just my opinion though. Asher196 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Important Cities Houghton/Hancock, Escanaba, Ironwood, Jackson, Michigan, Alpena, Michigan, Adrian, Michigan

Dear JohninDC:

You apparently think that Houghton/Hancock, Escanaba, Ironwood, Jackson, Alpena, Adrian are unimportant enough to not merit listing.

Populations are not the only metric that should be used for measure importance.

Escanaba and Alpena are regional anchors. So is Houghton and Hancock. They are relatively important to their areas, and are in fact economic powerhouses for them. There is more to the Upper Penninsula than Sault Ste. Mariee and Marquette. Apparently the entire northeast corner of the lower peninsula is inconsequential.

Adrian is itself an important center for southeastern Michigan, particularly given that it has not one but two colleges there.

Of course, on a global level one could dynamite the whole list from Michigan, and maybe nobody would miss it.

However, that should not be the test.

In part, an encyclopedia can address different audiences from different locales.

I recognize that reasonable minds might differ on the importance of particular events or particular locales. This are difficulties of perception, viewpoint and scale.

This whole article has a noticeable bias, and it is that southeastern Michigan is "important" as is Traverse City and maybe Lansing. One only has to look at the so-called "Map of Michigan" to see what is noteworthy.

With respect, you have a real problem with perception, and need to reevaluate and articulate your standards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Ii would also note that even the so-called territorial "Map of Michigan" has Houghton on it, which you have deemed unfit.

This would seem to be a case of "ipse dixit" as there are no visible standards by which we are to judge this call.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

You can probably describe something "important" about nearly every town in the state. Tiny Hell is famous internationally. Ludington is the terminus (former terminus?) of an important Lake Michigan ferry, and the largest town on Lake MIchigan between Manistee and St. Joseph. Big Rapids is home to Ferris State College, including the Michigan College of Optometry. Howell was once home to the Michigan chapter of the KKK. World-renowned Beaumont Hospital is in Royal Oak. The issue I suppose is, important to *whom*? I agree that an encyclopedia has different audiences with different frames of reference, but there's a real risk that by encumbering the list with every town that might be important to one or another subset of persons, you render the list meaningless. Michigan is not *that* large a state, and 31 "important cities and towns" (which includes the 10 largest) is pushing it. JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It also would seem that to the extent that a town or towns possess primarily regional importance, they are more appropriately included instead on existing Wikipedia pages (e.g., Northern Michigan and Upper Peninsula of Michigan that focus on particular regions of the state. JohnInDC (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear JohninDC:

You did a nice diversionary job of proposing and refuting a lot of cities that I did not propose. Ludington could be on a list, to be sure.

But your 'straw man' arguments did not address -- one way or the other -- my set of cities, or even one of them. And certainly, they don't have to stand or fall as a set. You did not provide a criteria.

'The problem, Herr Mozart, is that there are too many notes.'

These were not arbitrarily picked out. Alpena, Escanaba and Houghton have large central cities. They are far larger than their population might suggest, as a lot of the people live 'out in the townships.' They are important to the areas in which they sit.

Some of them are historically or culturally important, even if there present economic impact may be viewed as smaller.

Additionally, to the extent you describe cities as regionally important, and suggest that we should reference them in the regional articles (I did in Northern Michigan, which I completely rewrote), there is an obvious shortcoming in the Michigan article. Specifically, there should be a portion of the article that cross references to those articles. If that was overcome, then some of my objections would be addressed.

Think about it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

I wasn't suggesting that your list was arbitrary, but rather that the basis you suggested for inclusion ("regionally important") wasn't appropriate to an article about the state at large. As for my examples, they weren't intended as a diversion but instead to illustrate how easy it is to render meaningless the word "important".

I can't think of any good reason that the Michigan article can't cross-reference those others. Indeed I've spent a lot of time with the Michigan article and didn't even know the others existed until we began this discussion. Would you like to take a crack at it? JohnInDC (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

JohninDC:

In some respect, importance is in the eye of the beholder.

To tell you the truth, I have not been to the other (presumed) regional articles. I started with some local cities, stumbled on the Northern Michigan article (which irritated me because it flat out said -- with a brief nod to the existence of Alpena as the twin of Traverse City -- that 'Upnorth means Traverse City.' That ignored a whole lot of ground and water and cities. It also -- at least arguably -- ignored that the Yooper and the thumb and even Muskegon and points north are sometimes colloquially referred to as UPNORTH. That got me to rewrite that article.

I've only been Wikiing for a couple of months, and for now I am really content to stay low level, and to try to straighten out the many municipal entries. I think I'm more or less finished with Northern Michigan but it really took a lot of time and effort. I also am real familiar with the area, so I had a better base line of personal knowledge. While I have a pretty good experiential level with the rest of the state -- I travel a lot in my work -- this was home in a lot of ways.

There's a couple of hundred townships, and another twenty plus counties to do in Northern Michigan. And a lot of towns, villages, etc. I've been trying to make these articles more meaningful, kind of like holding them up to a microscope.

Although you flatter me, I note that every time I venture into a big 'main line' article, I create a certain amount of agitation (could even be considered hostility), and I am chary of grabbing a lightening rod.

So for now, I think I just want to muddle through, and (mainly) do the area within Northern Michigan.

Before anybody starts, it would be worthwhile to see if the regional articles exist, and if they do at what level. As I already indicated, I thought the Northern Michigan article was appalling in its narrow and biased focus. Unfortunately, if you simply drive past or through all these other places, you miss a lot and can assume that such an article is a fair representation.

Rather like those who simply fly over the middle of the country on their way to the real places on the coasts.

Meanwhile, another issue that we need to address is the issue of economic alliances and commuting patterns in Michigan. For example, the Michigan article does not address the 'I-94 corridor' out to Ann Arbor and beyond. Nor does it address the growth of exurbia in Michigan (out to about 40 mile road to the north), and the symbiotic relationship between Oakland County and Macomb County. One only has to look at the commuting patterns on I-696 and M-59 to know that those two counties could form their own Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, and that it is an important phenomena. However, I'm no demographer, and we would need someone with access to the literature to make a credible analysis. Indeed, there are political overtones to such an analysis, and it is one of the reasons why the census has not made that adjustment.

I agree. I do seriously think that the Michigan article should cross reference the other regional Michigan articles, assuming they exist, and assuming they can be brought up to speed, eventually. But I digress.

Parenthetically, I would also note that my initial attempt to put in a reference to Northern Michigan into the Michigan article was soundly reverted. Maybe I've worked around that, but there should be a more straight forward way. Maybe a side-box or something. Unfortunately, my lack of knowledge of the mechanics of writing and editing in Wiki is an impediment to my taking on grander participation.

So while I'm flattered, for now I'm declining your invitation. If I come around on this, I'll let you know.

Finally, and of course, your modest proposal should not divert attention from my initial query. Some of these cities are important, and deserve inclusion. The decision needs to be carefully evaluated.

Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stan