From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reads like an advertisement

The introductory sections of this article exhibit classic boosterism and entirely inappropriate to a reference work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.29.162 ( talk) 08:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crime in Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Why I'm restoring the last paragraph of the lead

As requested by Staszek Lem:

  • On January 14, Donald Trump tweeted that John Lewis's Congressional district, which is most of Atlanta, is "crime infested". [1] [2]
  • On January 15, Aceruss appeared at this article, as he wrote, to "updat[e] rising murder rates". On Wikipedia, we call that POV-pushing and cherry-picking. One of his "reliable sources" was worldatlas.com, which may be a good place to get a map or atlas, or download driving directions, but a reliable source for crime statistics?
  • Aceruss was reverted twice, on January 15 and 17, by different editors.
  • On January 19, "newly registered" Factsdontlie appeared at this article to make his first edit to the encyclopedia. He restored Aceruss's POV pushing and, using perfect syntax, expanded Aceruss's raw URL footnotes using the {{ cite news}} templates. On his first edit to the encyclopedia.

I'm sorry, Staszek Lem, but I don't have to "explain ... why this referenced information is wrong". It may be wrong, it may be right. I frankly don't care. It's cherry-picked to push a POV, and that's what I care about. Why include information about the change in homicides in 2016 and not the number of rapes or other violent crimes? Why include one year's change in crime statistics, which almost any credible source will tell you is meaningless (longer-term trends are meaningful, year-over-year changes are not). See WP:ONUS. Just because something may (or may not) come from a reliable source doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 05:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

re: " Why include one year's change" - because this is how wikipedia works: most editors are volunteers here and I suspect not at all political analysts. Therefore a person finds one bit of info and adds it. Another person adds another bit, and so on. Therefor if you are concerned, please add another year of stats, then another one, make a table, etc. Finally, find and cite an article which discusses the trend. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
re: "It's cherry-picked to push a POV, " - which exactly POV you are talking about? Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
re Trump: we all know that tweets are not valid refs regardless the tweetman, so I have no idea why you are playing "Trump card" here. Please keep politics out wikipedia talk pages. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
re: "Just because something may come from a reliable source doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article." - yes, per WP:TRIVIA. But a year stats IMO is not trivia and does belong. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
why I am restoring the lede: the old text speaks of 2001-2009. New lede speaks of recent times. Therefore IMO the previous lede may paint and outdated nice and quiet time. New text says that now crime is on the rise. Unless you prove otherwise, "POV-crying " is an invalid argument, because you did not prove that this POV is false or biased. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Finally: Word of caution: beware WP:BOOMERANG: accusations without evidence may hit you back: yours actually appear POV pushing in opposite direction: trying to hush down that crime is back on the rise (and I don't case whether it is so or not). Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

"and oh, Malik, it appears you are in a long revert war here. Please don't. Unbecoming of a long-time editor who is supposed to know the rules of dispute resolution. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Can you show me where I suggested using Twitter as a reference? Oh, that's right. I didn't. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 02:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Can you tell me when WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:LEAD and WP:V were all repealed? Oh, that's right. They weren't. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 02:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry. Until you can seriously engage the argument that I put forward -- that this is cherry-picking one year's murder statistics to push a POV -- I will revert out of fidelity to the policies and guidelines I've cited. And you've cited? What exactly? —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 02:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • What's that: "On January 14, Donald Trump tweeted"? Oh, that's right Malik did not write that. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • What's exactly wrong with the current version of the lead? Oh, that's right, it summarizes the article content.
    • re: "That's cherry picking." No, that's citing reliable sources which a user happened to run into. And removal of the info you don't like is censorship. If you claim it is POV pushing, prove it. Or, better, fix it by adding a more balanced info. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

BTW it is quite unbecoming accusing a fellow wikipedian of vandalism in edit summaries. Please review WP:VANDAL. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Also I disagree labeling deputy chief's valid concerns as "POV-pushing trivia". Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

"Neutrality" and "unbalanced" section tags

Please explain exactly how the section is unbalanced and non-neutral, so that the problems may be fixed. Personally, I fail to see how this single sentence is non-neutral and which particular POV makes it unbalanced. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Interested editors can read the preceding section, where I explained my concerns about POV pushing and cherry-picking nearly a week ago. Moving the sentence from the lead to its own section may have made the problem worse.
Frankly, there are a host of things you fail to see, but this really isn't the right place to discuss your short-comings. —  MShabazz  Talk/ Stalk 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And I addressed your objections. And you still fail to answer which exactly POV you have in mind, both "nearly a week ago" and now. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And once again, how do you suggest to fix the problem you see (besides reverting well-referenced info)? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You continue insulting fellow wikipedians. Please stop it right away. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Wow. I merely updated the lead which was outdated, a month ago, been away, and come back to see a lot of controversy. Not to bash Malik because while I disagree with him often we have worked things out on some other pages. But I'm sorry, referencing murder rates is not cherrypicking. Murder is the worst crime that can happen to someone, so it is the most important crime statistic. Also, it is the hardest to manipulate which is a complaint Malik and others have levied about crime statistics in general, is that they are manipulated. Lastly, murder and violent crime go hand in hand. Bottom line how can you leave the page lead saying crime has gone way down recently when it only goes through 2009? The 2012 and 2016 should be added to the lead and we all move on. Violent crime HAS gone up in Atlanta in recent years, it must be updated. If it goes down in the future great, that will be updated too. Aceruss ( talk) 22:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Suburbs

WSJ: Crime Migrates to Suburbs:

I have a google snippet:

The violent-crime rate in Atlanta's suburbs rose 23% between 2000 and 2008, while the city of Atlanta's violent-crime rate dropped 49%,

Unfortunately the whole article is behind the paywall. Can someone assess it and summarize into wikipedia? Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It's easier for me to read and edit on my computer -- I'm using a smartphone right now -- but here's a longer excerpt:
The decline in homicides nationally has overshadowed a countertrend: rising murders in the suburbs.... U.S. homicides fell sharply from 2001 to 2010, including a 16.7% drop in big cities, according to a federal Bureau of Justice Statistics study of the most recent, reported data. That is because of a host of factors, including better medical treatment for victims of violent injury and aggressive police measures in megacities like New York and Los Angeles.
But homicides rose 16.9% in suburbs during the same period, according to the BJS. This came during a time when populations in both large cities and suburbs grew substantially.
Today, suburban murders ... make up about a quarter of all homicides in the U.S., up from 20.7% in 2001, according to the BJS. The sharpest increases in violent crime appear to be in suburbs of cities, including those of Houston, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta. The violent-crime rate in Atlanta's suburbs rose 23% between 2000 and 2008, while the city of Atlanta's violent-crime rate dropped 49%, according to federal crime data in a May 2011 study by the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.
Criminologists and public officials cite weaker and more resource-strapped law enforcement in some suburbs for the increase, among other factors. That, in turn, attracts criminals who focus on suburbs, because they are looking for easier places than relatively well-policed cities to commit crimes.
"They just shifted their operations," said Craig Steckler, the departing police chief of Fremont, Calif., and president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. ...
New suburban residents include people who moved from tough urban neighborhoods, lured in part by cheaper rents in some suburbs like Clayton County. Some were pushed out of cities like Atlanta by urban gentrification and public-housing demolition. Many hoped for less crime, but some who came were criminals.
Clayton County ... was rural but today is full of homes and apartment complexes that house people who migrated over the past decade and a half from Atlanta's gritty south side and, after 2005, from the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. Unemployment, at 10.5% in October, was far above the national rate of 7.9% that month. Its home-foreclosure rate is more than double the national average. ...
Homicides rose in Clayton County to 48 in 2007 from 12 in 1997, according to Georgia Bureau of Investigation statistics. They dipped right after the recession to 15 in 2010, but they rose last year to 29, tracking national trends for violent crime. ...
—  MShabazz  Talk/ Stalk 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crime in Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Crime_in_Atlanta&oldid=1206824922"