Jump to content

Talk:Lansing, Michigan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

24th Most Dangerous City

[edit]

Why is there no mention of Lansing being the 24th most dangerous city according to the FBI? I understand that city officials and town supporters want to make sure that Lansing comes across well in this article, but this is an important piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.84 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Seat Issue

[edit]

This County Seat Issue as it is currently written is incorrect. I'm guessing the distinction Kestenbaum is making is that Lansing is, in fact, part of a county, but it is not the county seat, whereas Richmond, Virginia is an independent city (i.e. not affiliated with a county at all.) But the fact still stands that Richmond, Virginia and other "independent cities" are state capitals that are also not county seats.

I think this statement needs to be modified to make this distinction clear. It may be the only state capital affiliated with a county that is not also the seat of the affiliated county, but saying it is the ONLY state capital that is also not a county seat is incorrect.

--Ztheday 9:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
But independent cities like Richmond VA and Carson City NV are classified as county equivalents (e.g., by the Census bureau) and appear in lists of counties for their states. In Colorado, Denver is an independent city in all but name: Denver County is coterminus with the city, and when the city annexes territory, it is also annexed to the county. Carson City got to be an independent city by annexing all of Ormsby County. If someone in one of those cities were to ask, "Where's our county seat? Where do we go for county functions?", the answer would be "Here."
The statement is correct and accurate as it stands, but if you have a better way of putting it, by all means, propose it. Kestenbaum 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not trying to be a crank, but the Census Bureau's lack of a term to describe an independent city and thereby calling it a "county equivalent" does not make the city of Richmond a county. I don't know about the situation in Denver, but the situation in the Commonwealth of Virginia is unique. The city of Richmond is isolated. It is not affiliated with the county functions of any counties surrounding it. When land is annexed, it is annexed to the city. If someone in Richmond (where I lived for many years) asks, "Where's our county seat? Where do we go for our county functions?", the answer is, "There is no county seat. Richmond is not part of a county." Everything that might be considered a county function is handled by the city. Every city or county is going to have administrative tasks, but the handling of those administrative tasks does not by its very nature define an area as a county. Upon moving to the Richmond area, Richmond's independent city status is quickly made clear.
Refer to the independent city page for a clear determination of the Commonwealth of Virginia's unique handling of this situation. Additionally, refer to the following quote from the wiki page on county seat: In Virginia, there are (since 2001) 39 independent cities, which are legally distinct from the counties that surround them. An independent city interacts with the commonwealth (state) government directly whereas towns, the only other type of municipal government authority in Virginia, do so through the county government apparatus. However, many of Virginia's independent cities act as the county seat for their neighbouring counties. Also, for certain statistical purposes, some independent cities are considered part of the county from which they separated. For example, the City of Fairfax is separate from Fairfax County, but is still the county's seat and also lies within Fairfax County for statistical purposes.
I would propose removal of the sentence in question. It doesn't add anything of importance to the "information" on the Lansing page. It's more of a party trivia fact than anything. It's inclusion is not important to the page at all. Ztheday 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry, but you have a lot of that wrong. The city of Fairfax, Virginia is NOT part of Fairfax County, and is not "included" with Fairfax County in any way, even if the Fairfax County government may have some facilities located there, outside its own jurisdiction. The city of Fairfax is a fully independent county equivalent, and (as you put it) interacts with the state directly like any other county equivalent.
Note that many county equivalents around the country are not titled County, including parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska. Kestenbaum 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the statement is NOT wrong, it is correct (refer to the National Association of Counties). Though Fairfax is an independent city, not itself part of Fairfax County it is, nonetheless and paradoxically, the official county seat of Fairfax County.Venqax (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then someone needs to fix the wiki page on county seat because the information in my previous post about Fairfax County is directly quoted from that page. Additionally, you're missing the point if you're focusing on Fairfax County. If you read my last post you'd know that my argument doesn't revolve around Fairfax at all. It was just an example that was included in the quote I snagged.
My question is, "Why have you ignored everything I've included about Richmond, Virginia?" I assume it's because you have no information to prove that Richmond, Virginia is, in fact, not treated as a county, and this admission would ruin your claim about Lansing. Richmond may be the only case where this holds true. Even so, it invalidates the claim that Lansing is the only state capital that is also not a county seat.
The truth is, the claim about Lansing is not accurate as it stands. Lansing may be the only state capital that is affiliated with a county that is not the county seat of that county, but it is not the only state capital that is not a county seat.
           That statement is correct Venqax (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your last note about county equivalents doesn't hold any water with me. A county equivalent is not a county. And, if you'd read the excerpt I provided, in Virginia, "An independent city interacts with the commonwealth (state) government directly whereas towns, the only other type of municipal government authority in Virginia, do so through the county government apparatus," you'll see that the city of Richmond is not affiliated with a county, and it is not a county unto itself. It is an independent city (therefore not a county seat), thereby invalidating the Lansing claim. Ztheday
Look, I'm not going to argue this any more. If the people of Michigan would rather have inaccurate trivia on their wikis than truth, then leave it. Ztheday
Conceptually, a county is a division of a state, imposed by the state for the state's purposes. The idea behind a "county equivalent" is not something dreamed up by Census Bureau statisticians, it is a generalization about the structures of states. Almost every state is completely tiled by counties and county equivalents in order to administer functions which need to be available for every square inch of state territory, such as recording of births and deaths and land titles. The specific constellation of functions assigned to counties varies from one state to another.
City governments, by contrast, are inherently entities created to provide specific services tailored to specific urban settlements, typically by local option. When you refer to cities being "affiliated" with a county, that totally misrepresents the relationship. You can be "affiliated" by voluntarily joining a club or association. Cities, rather, are located within and are part of a particular county or counties. When a city like Richmond becomes a county equivalent, that means it takes on county functions and has a different relation to its state than do ordinary cities.
The fact that Lansing is not a county seat is an unusual distinction (or negative distinction). Even if you exclude Richmond, Carson City, Anchorage, and Baton Rouge because their county equivalents are not labeled "county", the other 45 state capitals are all county seats.
Notwithstanding all this, I will now attempt to edit the sentence to reflect your concerns. Kestenbaum 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kestenbaum, this new change is perfectly acceptable. I think this new statement truly explains the unique situation of Lansing more clearly and more accurately. Thank you. Ztheday

Neighborhoods

[edit]

I have recently added a section on the Lansing page called "Neighborhoods" to decribe the general layout of the city by its regions: Northwest, West, East and Southsides. I've add preliminary descriptions of each with some commentary. I'm sure I'll clean them up as I read them more, and would encourage other's to add to them, and remove anything that may be deemed "too" opinionated if there is anything.

Would it be appropriate to mention the various neighborhood groups in this section? Maybe a table broke out with the current regions stating the group's name, geographic boundries and a link to their web site if they have one or even a Wikipedia entry.
--Stryder 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a nice Google map listing the various Lansing neighborhood organizations.
--Stryder (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking at this section, again, and I think I'm the one that added it, if anything, I'd like to see it trimmed way down so as to keep the page consistent with other city pages. On most other pages the section is called "cityscape", and even for much larger cities is usually thin. If someone would like to trim it down, that'd be great. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges, universities and trade schools?

[edit]

Some friends of mine and I tried listing all of the post graduate schools in and around the Lansing area once. I wish we had written them down. Off the top of my head some that are not mentioned are Lansing Community College, Davenport University, Great Lakes Christian College, the barber college, Douglas J, Excel Academies of Cosmetology, Adams Modeling, and then CMU and Adrian both have extentions here...

You get the idea.

--Stryder 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


don't forget thomas m. cooley law school. it's probably the school in lansing that results in the most $ awarded to students. since it's a law school and all.

Let's not get out of control

[edit]

I removed the sentence "The Lansing area is generally recognized as one of the most educated communities in the United States." It's completely and utterly false. No one outside Lansing thinks this at all, especially not people from out of state. I replaced it by saying there are many higher ed institutions, but to claim that Lansing is nationally regarded for education is false. Compare Lansing to, say, Boston. The number of colleges don't give national reputations, the caliber of the institutions themselves does.

I don't think many people in Michigan think this either, unless your talking about MSU in East Lansing about their veterinary or international programs then that would be true.

13 April 2009: Absolutely... I was born in Lansing, lived there for 18 years, and still spend a good deal of time there. It strikes me as a profoundly undereducated city, and I say this as someone who has been through the educational system, as well as a relative of educational employees. While Lansing has many schools (K-12, collegiate/professional, and technical/trades) it is generally regarded as anything BUT an educational mecca. The Lansing School District is in fact failing under state and federal guidelines, and is one of the worst performing districts in the state. -- TheFishMan

Shameless Boosterism

[edit]

Whoever has been working on this entry is either a shameless booster for the city of Lansing or someone whose definitions of "lively entertainment and culture" and "gentrification" are wildly different from those used by the general population. I've taken out the worst excesses. Please, people, this is supposed to be a useful resource, not an online house of lies.

amyanda 01:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)amyanda2000 I don't know about 'gentrification' but I can't imagine why Lansing should NOT be able to claim 'lively entertainment and culture'- maybe Lansing isn't world renowned for lively entertainment and culture, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have those things, it certainly does. Why would this be a lie? Lansing has many art and cultureal festivals and activities, several theatures- community, childrens and professional- plenty of art museums, tons of live music, concerts, commedians, and all sorts of other cultural activity. By what definition is this not lively entertainment and culture? as compared to what? If it didn't say 'the liveliest in the nation' then I don't see the complaint. There are cultural events year round and some rather big festivals that take place in lansing. amyanda 01:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)amyanda2000[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

i can provide pictures of lansing/lansing area, but what sort of pictures should i be going for? i was thinking a picture of oldsmobile stadium would be good, and a skyline picture of the downtown region. any other suggestions? Ricecake 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ricecake[reply]

I can get pictures of the Board of Water and Light buildings and Sparrow Hospital pretty easily. Can we use those? Nick 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I live about a block from Sparrow Hospital and I can get decent shot of the capitol skyline between the Sparrow and the Professional Building. It looks very nice at sunset. Would anyone have a place for it? Lucajo 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Economy?

[edit]

I find the entire section to be useless and non-notable. The fact that the city has a few IT companies does not educate anyone about Lansing. Segelflugzeugwettbewerber 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, it's not entirly notable. While Lansing does have a Technology Economy on some level, it's not notable. LilDice 00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Timeline

[edit]

Why is the closing of the GM plant in Delphi in 2005 on the same timeline as the founding of the City. I think it would be notable under a section about the auto industry in Lansing, but not on that scale. Thoughts? LilDice 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GM is a major employer in the area, and the company is one of the largest in the world. I would say the plant closing is notable enough. Personally, I don't consider the founding of Lansing to be terribly notable anyway.--Segelflugzeugwettbewerber 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of with you, but if the subject is Lansing, then things related to changes in its entity are relatively more important. But yes as the first or second largest employer in the area, a plant closing is fairly important. - Taxman Talk 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let's leave it there but start a new section on the Auto Industry. A breif synopsis and plant opening and closings. I'll put this on my todo unless someone that feels a bit more passionate about it or has more knowledge than me wants to start it. LilDice 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Issue

[edit]

It says at the beginning of the article that "Lansing is the only state capital city in the United States that extends into three counties". This would be an intersting factoid if it were true. Unfortunately, Columbus extends out of Franklin County, Ohio into Delaware County, Ohio and Fairfield County, Ohio. I'm going to add a fact check, and if somebody can verify the truthiness of this statement, it can stay. Otherwise it will be removed shortly.

Now that you mention it, isn't Oklahoma City a capital too? I think it extends into more than three counties due to annexations in recent years. Kestenbaum 17:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must have changed it, because I see nowehere where it says that Lansing is the only state capital to extend into three counties. The beginning paragraph simply says that the city extends into three counties. Criticalthinker 12 July 2006

I'm not sure it is even accurate that Lansing extends into 3 counties. Ingham and Eaton, yes, but I'm not sure Lansing extends into Clinton County. East Lansing does, but it's a different city.Venqax (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Interest

[edit]

How about adding a section about the local places of interest such as bars, resteraunts, etc? I don't mean national chains like TGI Friday's, but the locally owned places that have been around for a long time (Emil's comes to mind. Yum.). Lucajo 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, would just devolve into advertising. LilDice 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we have editors' for. I know before I went to Chicago I looked up several places to go check out, including a few local digs. Just a suggestion. Lucajo 23:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean I'd guess I'd have to take a look at some other city's pages, however remember wikipedia is not a place for original research. So you and I can't just make a list of our favorite restaurants....now if you wanted to pick a few good reviews from the LSJ...that's something else. LilDice 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to do a "Place of Interest" section, it should only be for landmarks and attractions, not bars and restaurants unless there is something VERY unique about them. Criticalthinker 19 July 2006
Sorry, the "bars and resteraunts" was the only thing I could think of at the time. Lucajo 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely like the idea. Someone else could start it. BTW, I've been working with some of my images. Hopefully, they are good enough for the page.

Criticalthinker

If we were to include such places as Oldsmobile Park, the Capitol Building, the State Library, the Turner-Dodge House, the Malcom X home place, and other places of clear educational, historical, or cultural import, then that would be a great addition. We should definitely leave out restaurants, stores, et cetera. As great as El Azteco is, it's not a main reason for coming to Lansing, you know? TheFishMan —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Original Research

[edit]

Remember, if you are adding large chunks to the page (criticalthinker) please cite your sources. Adding info to the page without citing it is not productive, an article is only as good as it's sources. LilDice 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1

[edit]

Note one reads:

"There are also two small non-contiguous tracts located in Ingham County. These sections are not highlighted on the map displayed as they are part of a 425 Agreement, meaning they do not officially count towards Lansing's area."

Actually, I've done quite a bit of research on this including contacting the Census Bureau about this, and far as they are concerned 425's, at least statistically for their standards, do count as annexations, if even not legally in Michigan. In fact, the 35.0 sq mi land area for Lansing includes all of the 425's done before 2000, so that figure includes the two 425 Agreements with Alaiedon Township and the one with Meridian Township which all happened prior to the 2000 count. Just thought I'd make this clear, and perhaps whoever made the note may want to correct it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Art Museum / Gallery information I added to the Culture section was recently deleted, saying that a commercial gallery is not a museum and that 2 of the museums I listed were technically not in Lansing (they are in East Lansing). Also WP:selfpublished.

I replaced this section for a few reasons:

First, gallery goes to a disambiguation page from which I selected Art gallery, which then redirects to art museum. The article explains that public galleries for the display of art are referred to as museums. If it was determined that any of the galleries did not have public displays of art then possibly one could change 'museum' to 'gallery', although I do not think there is evidence that any of the galleries do not have public displays of art.

Second, there is a large amount of information regarding the Greater Lansing Area, of which East Lansing is a part, on the Lansing page. That may not justify the inclusion of those galleries however the majority of the galleries I added are in Lansing proper and I feel should be included. If it is determined that the East Lansing galleries should be deleted then the whole page probably needs a workover (sections such as Education including Michigan State University which is in East Lansing as well).

Finally, as for WP:selfpublished, I reviewed wp:selfpub and it does not appear as though the information used in the article violates any of the 5 points.

I am willing to discuss, but please don't bite the noob! Feltcap (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the establishments which you listed are museums. They are commercial galleries - ie. they are businesses selling a product. Calling a gallery a museum is like calling a bookstore a library. It is perfectly appropriate in a City article to list museums and libraries, but you don't list the commercial galleries and bookstores. As for stuff in East Lansing that gets listed in the Lansing article, I agree with you that the whole article needs to be looked at, and the East Lansing related material moved there. It doesn't belong here. As for WP:SELFPUB - the point is that every one of the sources you've cited is the web page for the gallery being listed. It looks more like and advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Per WP:RS, reliable secondary sources are what is generally needed for a citation - eg a newspaper article about it, not a reference to the business' own web site. As for not biting noogs - you've been at this for a year now - I hardly think you qualify. Fladrif (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with Fladrif on this one.--Criticalthinker (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These references are used to provide location information on the galleries and show that they have publicly available art galleries.
Per wp:selfpub:
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
    • These are art galleries claiming to have publicly available collections, something which is expected of an art gallery as opposed to a craft store which would be purely commercial.
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
    • They provide information regarding their collections, they do not make claims regarding other parties.
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    • The reference is not to claim anything other than possession of art, which would be the purpose of an art gallery.
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
    • There is no reasonable doubt that an art gallery would not display art, again a craft store might have a burden of proof but an art gallery claiming to display art is a reasonable assumption.
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
    • The Lansing article is not based primarily on the references, they merely provide information on the gallery location being Lansing and that a privately owned collection is on public display.
For those reasons I do not believe that the inclusion of these sources violates wp:selfpub. I have to go at the moment, but I will have more time tomorrow to address other concerns. Feltcap (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another guideline that applies here is WP:USCITY#Arts and culture, and the section on museums in particular. It's vague enough that it probably won't settle this particular question, but it does point toward ensuring good sources and listing the significant (major) entities. WP:NOTGUIDE gets a little closer, particularly item 2: "Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc." I don't care for lists of things whose only references are to the organization's own website (really a link directory in disguise). Consider leaving the list out of the article until it can be referenced by a reliable third-party source that is giving the topic of galleries more than trivial coverage. ✤ JonHarder talk 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be that the information is not robust enough, I will userfy the section and develop it for an attempt at later inclusion. Feltcap (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the same basis (no citation beyond a primary source), the following lists can be pruned back:
  • Public and private primary schools
  • Music
  • Theatre
  • Museums
  • Newspapers and Magazines
✤ JonHarder talk 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...no. The main basis was that you were including blatantly commercial ventures, and it was decided that this page would not be going in that direction. Please, just stop fighting this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an article matures, it is natural for lists to give way to well-documented prose. Lists have a way of enticing casual editors into adding undocumented entries in a mistaken belief that completeness is more important than core policies like verifiability or notability as defined by WikiProject Cities. I believe this article is ready to pull itself up to the next level on the path to becoming a good article. I am suggesting that editors consider ensuring that list items either have a standing article (implies notability) or are referenced with a reliable third party source that gives the topic more than trivial coverage. The quality of the source is more important to me than whether an item in question is a commercial enterprise. By trimming the lists to the most notable (and verifiable) items, this article will take another step up in quality and set the stage for the conversion of lists to paragraphs. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted[1] the recent insertion of a tech company that is the type of list item we are discussion, which has brought my attention to the "tech" list. Five or six are the kind of blatantly commercial entries that Criticalthinker refers to; several others are similar but have no refs. Is there any reason not to clean up that list as well? ✤ JonHarder talk 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed entries or links from the Economy section that were commercial organizations and self-referencing primary sources of the type we are discussing here. In a couple of cases I requested refs. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with that edit. In general on the gallery issue, I don't think we should exclude mention of all galleries just because they are commercial and list all museums just because they are not, that's just anti-commercial bias. There are some pretty unimportant museums. But in order for a gallery to be listed, particularly on the main Lansing page, it would have to have demonstrable importance and impact on the city from reliable third party references. I don't know if Lansing has any such galleries, but if the sources support their importance, then they should be included on that basis. Without that support, they should certainly not be covered. It's the basic premise of allocating space in an article to the most important things, and that must be done on the basis of references. - Taxman Talk 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Data Colors

[edit]

I'm used to seeing cold temperatures reported with blue background and warm temperatures reported with orange and red. Is there any reason why this isn't true for this page? I'm not too familiar with how to code these tables. 66.134.4.226 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County seat

[edit]

The intro states that Lansing is the only one of the state capitals located within a county to not be the county seat, and then says there are 44 within counties, meaning there are six without. However, I only count four:

  • Richmond (independent city)
  • Carson City (independent city)
  • Baton Rouge (parish seat)
  • Juneau (consolidated city-borough)

If it's also including consolidated city-counties, then the numbering doesn't necessarily work then either, because there are four of those as well:

  • Honolulu
  • Denver
  • Nashville (mostly)
  • Indianapolis (mostly)

So I guess it might be including only Honolulu and Denver, but still, those are counties, just coterminous with their cities. This needs a source or clarification, and in fact we probably don't need the numbering at all; simply saying "It's the only capital city in the United States which is not the seat of its county-equivalent" would work, with a link to county-equivalent maybe. Richmond and Carson City still remain county-equivalents. --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, NO. It is factually the only U.S. state capital which is not the seat of the county wherein it primarily resides, as portions of Lansing are in Eaton County in the west, and Clinton County in the north. 68.32.218.121 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability not established

[edit]

I am going to undo an edit.

I note the following: What can be done with a dead external link See also: Wikipedia:Linkrot

Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. Note however, that the matter is different for references: see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links.

The following sources are relevant: Round Table Reviews Lighthouse Literary Reviews The Midwest Book Review 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Urban population

[edit]

Since the city population, metro population, and CSA population changed with the 2010 census, should not the Urban population (in InfoBox; currently 300,032) change as well? Dj1997 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be changed until the Census Bureau releases that information, which is hasn't yet. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPA Pronunciation

[edit]

This article should list 'lænʦiŋ as IPA pronunciation of Lansing, Michigan. 'lænsiŋ may be a standard English pronunciation, but it is not the common local pronunciation. mdkarazim (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe being a local I don't hear the "t", but I honestly don't hear the t when I pronounce it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I first noticed it from non-locals (especially those from East Asia) saying 'sing'; it didn't sound quite right. I observed my mom & grandma both saying it like me: somewhere between 'sing' and 'tsing'. Is there a different IPA character from 'ʦ' that would better represent this sound between 's' and 'ts' to reflect the local pronunciation? mdkarazim (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went back an corrected my original response. I honestly don't hear anything other thing a straight "sing" on the second syllable when I or other locals says it. I think I know what you're talking about, but it seems this is just something common in American English when you start a second syllable with an "s". I'm not sure it's anything locally unique or anything that has its own IPA character. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Area

[edit]

I've lived in this region for years and have always wondered is there any formal geographical region the urban area lays in? By that I mean is there a formally named plain and marsh or plateau or anything in which the area sits? I honestly can't think of anything. I know the city sits up quite high in comparison to places like Flint, Grand Rapids, Battle Creek-Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor (only Jackson sits higher of the major cities), but there doesn't seem to be any geographical region for Mid-Michigan. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should change the Lansing skyline photo.

[edit]

I did change it, to the photo at right. Obviously someone disagreed and changed it back! Here is what I don't like about the old photo.

Downtown Lansing, Michigan

1. It just isn't that great of a photo. There is no contrast, everything is red/yellow, including the sky, to a point! Clearly the photo was taken at sunrise.

2. In the thumbnail visible on the article itself, the most important buildings are difficult to see - the Capitol dome in particular is nearly invisible.

3. The photo gives you no clue that a river might be flowing through downtown. The river is one of the central features of the city.

The photo I posted corrects all three of these mistakes. I understand that it shows less of the city overall, but I think the trade is well worthwhile. One possible compromise that would involve a lot more work is to do something like we see on the Grand Rapids page and make a collage of many different photos instead of trying to capture the city in one shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidshane0 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved latest comment to end of discussion. Please sign your posts using four tildes 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we have both pictures in different parts of the article? They each have something to recommend them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the article pictured here in another part of the article, or include it in a montage like on other city infobox pages. But, as the representative photo of the Lansing skyline? No way. So, that's my two cents. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't necessarily want the Lansing skyline, we want a photo that represents the city well. (Obviously the river is not part of the skyline. But it's important.) Davidshane0 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native American history

[edit]

Is there any books on the Native American history either of the land in or in the immediate vicinity of Lansing before European/American settlement? I've lived here all my life and have heard almost nothing on what tribes used this area aside from Chief Okemos, who I'm not even sure was from the area. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

[edit]

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton County

[edit]

I have long wondered why this page asserts that Lansing extends into Clinton County, when I can find no evidence that this is so. I'm not denying that it is the case, but I also would like to see a citation for it. Just today I was studying the map of Lansing that is hung in the local post office and it shows the city limits stopping short of Clinton County, as best as I can tell. Same with the map in the public library. I'd be delighted to see some evidence to the contrary as this has been a puzzle to me for quite some time. I tried putting a "citation needed" tag on the claim, but that was reverted on the grounds that ... I don't have a citation to prove that it needs a citation. Er, OK. Bunnyhugger (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why people are skeptical. I have seen no city maps show the 425 Agreement with Dewitt Township. But, the transfer of land happened. Lansing took over jurisdiction for the land that includes the airport in October 2011:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2011/10/lansing_airport_aerotropolis_a.html

In fact, here's another story from this year about DeWitt wanting a say on the airport, even though it is now apart of Lansing:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/community/dewitt-bath/2014/08/17/dewitt-township-seeks-voice-on-airport-master-plan/14053751/

Hope this helps. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lansing, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Dairy is a noteworthy Lansing institution

[edit]

Apparently User:John from Idegon know not whereof he speaks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits 6/28/2016

[edit]

Hello all, I'm looking for a consensus about including the Financial Empowerment Center on the timeline. The establishment of the Financial Empowerment Center in 2013 has been a tremendously successful public-private partnership offered by the City that is helping low-income residents with their finances in Lansing. Also, Lansing is one of only 5 communities in the whole country that has such a comprehensive financial counseling program.

I had included it on the timeline, but one user decided it was "a minor event." Below is my edit. Please discuss. Thanks.

• 2013—Mayor Bernero and community agencies partner with Bloomberg Philanthropies to establish Lansing as one of five U.S. cities with Financial Empowerment Centers. Lansing’s Financial Empowerment Center provides free, professional counseling to at least 4,000 residents.

http://www.lansingmi.gov/media/view/LansingLaunchesFinancialEmpowermentCenter-PR44204/5623 216.157.211.66 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.211.66 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it. I assumed it was best etiquette to have discussion about the Timeline to be under the Timeline heading, but this works, too.216.157.211.66 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Lansing, Michigan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Lansing, Michigan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lansing, Michigan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lansing, Michigan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move timeline to its own separate article

[edit]

The timeline is not in line with the structure of the majority of settlement articles on Wikipedia. It should have its own separate article.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it started out good, but people have been adding superificial things to it particularly since 2000, and it's become very unwieldy. I'd like to see it moved. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who knows how to do this do this, already? The timeline is cluttering an already overly wordy article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be remedied. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been. I deleted the entire section. It's almost completely unsourced. MOS discourages making lists like this in favor of writing it out in prose. I certainly know how to make a content fork article but I'm not going to make a new article that is poorly sourced, and I have neither the time nor the interest to do the research. John from Idegon (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top city employers table updated; seeking opinions

[edit]

Hello all, I just updated the "Top City Employers" table with the most recent numbers from LEAP (the Lansing Economic Area Partnership), which they update on an annual basis. There are a few changes I've been thinking about, and I wanted to get the input and assistance of others to determine whether they should be made, and what the best way is to do so. The table can be found at Template:Lansing top city employers.

  • The old data from 2014 had 15 entries, however the current data from LEAP is split into two tables: top 10 employers, and top private sector employers. To get entries 11-15, I used numbers from the private industry table; however, I tend to think reducing the list to ten entries would be a better solution, and it would more accurately represent the source data. (The most obvious reason I have is that the Meijer number listed is strictly for Lansing's distribution center; it does not count employees at Meijer stores nor any other operations they may have in the city.)
  • The text "Top City Employers" feels slightly misleading to me, as not all of these employers are in the city of Lansing proper. MSU is East Lansing, though I think that's less misleading than Dart Container, which is in Mason. Certainly all of these companies are within the Greater Lansing area, which this article also represents; but I'm simply wondering whether the text could be worded a bit differently to make that clearer, and what that better text might be.
  • The pie chart is arguably problematic. Undoubtedly I think it's neat and it'd be nice to keep, but it's 5 years old, and more importantly I can't figure out what the chart's percentages are based on. LEAP has some data about employers and places of business by industry, but none of it really matches up with this chart. Due to the combination of outdated data and lack of a reliable source to verify its accuracy, I propose its removal.

I look forward to any feedback others may provide! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 01:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On each point, I don't find 15 entries to be too many, quite honestly. And if I were making the list, I'd cut it off at some arbitrary number of employees like over 500 or over 1,000 instead of some set number on the list. Heck, the Grand Rapids article lists the Top 20. On the second point, "city" seems to be used in most wiki page on cities and is obviously not be be taken literally. I don't find any problem with using "city" in a general regional sense. On the last part, you could get rid of the pie chart, altogether if you've already gotten rid of the outdated data in the chart. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think 15 is too many; I just think the accuracy of the source data falls off after the top 10. The Grand Rapids source lists the full 20, and their numbers seem to be a bit more precise than what LEAP offers. On the second point: if other articles are wording it similarly, then I concede there's probably no good reason to change it here. Thanks! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 13:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of the founding of Lansing

[edit]

I can't remember if I added the part about Biddle City years ago, but apparently this story is a myth:

https://www.wkar.org/post/debunking-myth-lansing-biddle-city#stream/0

If someone has some time, It'd be great if they could remove this and rewrite it. Apparently, the Ford brothers were from New York via Jackson (if I heard the story correctly in the link) and none of the original purchasers of land in the city were from Lansing, New York, even though the city is named after that town and I assume some of them came and settled here early in the settlement's history. It also appears the sale of the land was not a swindle and everything was above board. If someone can put some of these words into a coherent paragraph or two, that'd be great. It'd also cut down on some of the excess of this section, too. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reupping this. I may change it sometime this month if no on else does. Even the source material for the myth in the current article plaining lays out that the oft-told myth of the areas settling is not true, so I'm confused as to why it's still stated exactly opposite of that. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Settlement

[edit]

I've never heard this so-called settlement talked about within the history of early Lansing. Even in the source material, it does not sound as if it was a village. This is not to say it's not worth a mention, but whatever this location was - the source material doesn't mention the location listed in the note on this settlement - it was certainly outside the original boundaries of the city unlike the actual three villages. It doesn't belong in the section of the three villages which joined to become the original City of Lansing in 1859. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanstronaut

[edit]

I noticed the denonym "Lanstronaut" was removed in a previous revision. I brought it back, it's commonly used enough to be worth listing. Vivianthus (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? As someone from Lansing, I have quite literally never heard or seen it used anywhere. It's probably for the best, then, if it were removed once again, this time permanently. 68.32.218.121 (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick web search shows several examples of it in use. In fairness it’s mostly used online and in recent years. Vivianthus (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Text and references copied from Quality Dairy Company to Lansing, Michigan. See former article for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lansing,_Michigan&oldid=1236550525"