Jump to content

Talk:Hamtramck, Michigan

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

Arab percentage[edit]

As of the 2000 Census, major ancestry groups reported by Hamtramck residents include:

· Polish - 26% · Black or African American - 15% · Yugoslavian - 12% · Arab - 11% · Asian Indian - 7% · Arab/Arabic - 6% · Bangladeshi - 10% · Ukrainian - 4% · German - 3% · Albanian - 3% · Other Arab - 3% · Irish - 2% · Italian - 2% · Russian - 2% · English - 1% · French (except Basque) - 1% · Lebanese - 1% · Pakistani - 1% · Scottish - 1% · Macedonian - 1% · Mexican - 1% · Iraqi - 1%

This list treats "Arab," "Arab/Arabic" and "Other Arab" as three separates. Can I assume that this is a mistake? I'm guessing that the first "Arab" listing, which is at 11%, actually is supposed to include the other two. I don't know that for a fact, though. 68.40.64.186 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think "Arab" and "Other Arab" mean different things but what's the difference between Arab and Arab/Arabic? I can't confirm those numbers with the US Census, we should probably update them with better info. Dr_Cherry 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Macedonians are Yugoslavian why are they seprate...And Most of the Yugoslavs in Hamtramck are Bosniaks(bosnians)....

blowout[edit]

"largest of its kind in the world"?? some joker wrote that, right? i mean, sxsw hasn't always been such a corporate affair, but surely that's a ridiculous statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.15.244 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paczki Day[edit]

It's Fat Tuesday, not Fat Thursday. It's the day before Ash Wednesday. 97.130.162.222 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hamtramck, 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 15:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoning maps[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamtramck, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hamtramck, 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) 05:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Hamtramck, 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) 12:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content reversion[edit]

John from Idegon reverted my change, claiming there needs to be a new source, even though the change that I made was to bring the phrasing in line with the source material. The previous phrasing, Ultimately Hamtramck amended its noise ordinance in July 2004, regulating all religious sounds., implies that

  • A) the amendment to the ordinance "regulates" religious sounds that were previously unregulated and that
  • B) the amendment regulates "religious sounds" in a broad sense, rather than calls to prayer.

This is incorrect on both counts. The amendment carved out a special exception for calls to prayer, where they were previously indistinguishable from other "noise" by the statute. From the amendment:

The city shall permit "calls to prayer" "church bells" and other reasonable means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for a duration not to exceed five minutes.

As you can also see from the above text, the amendment specifically refers to calls to prayer, and not "all religious sounds". "Religious sounds" that are not related to announcing religious meetings would presumably not be covered by the amendment. My edit changed the sentence to read: Ultimately Hamtramck amended its noise ordinance in July 2004, creating an exception for religious calls to prayer and regulating the volume and times at which such calls may be broadcasted. which I believe is what the amendment says. If John from Idegon or anyone else has any objection to the change, I'd love to hear your reasoning. If you happen to have some kind of case law or other source that supports the previous incorrect wording, I'd love to see that too. AlexEng(TALK) 02:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's correct in your view is irrelevant. What the sources say is. All I asked you to do was start a discussion here to gain a consensus for your change. Which per WP:BRD you should not have reinstated. I have again reverted it. All interested parties can discuss it here, and when we reach a consensus, then we can change the article. I do not see a source for the attitude here. This is exactly how this is supposed to work. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's correct in your view is equally irrelevant. What you restored is Original Research and not indicative of what's written in the sources cited. If you have a PAG based reason to restore factually incorrect content, I'm all ears. AlexEng(TALK) 03:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hamtramck really the only Muslim-majority city in the US?[edit]

The introduction states: "[Hamtramck] is notable as the only Muslim-majority city in the United States". If this were the case, it should then be true that Hamtramck has the highest per capita population of Muslims in the US (being the only city with a proportion of Muslims above 50%). However, the introduction for Dearborn claims: "Dearborn has the largest Muslim population in the United States per capita". Clearly, these two things cannot both be true (unless I have some misunderstanding about what "per capita" means).

It appears that the assertion that Hamtramck is a Muslim-majority city stems from Census data on ethnic groups in the city, from which religious affiliations are estimated (there are certainly sources that make this claim but with no reasoning: WaPo, BBC, ArabNews). Namely, the populations of Arabs, Bangladeshis, Bosnians and African Americans in the city suggest that a majority of the residents are Muslim. I also wonder if the assertion that the city is Muslim-majority is being conflated with the fact that it has a Muslim-majority city council.

But as far as I can tell, this is the same logic by which Dearborn is deemed the highest Muslim-per capita city in the US. A number of sources parrot this supposed fact: WMJ, Politico, PBS. But the only statistic I could find surrounding ethnicity/religion is also from the Census, which reports that 55% of Dearborn's population is Arab. If we apply the same logic that (I think) was applied to Hamtramck, this would make Dearborn also a majority-Muslim city, because most of its residents come from an ethnic group that mostly practices Islam.

Of course, all of this is based on assumptions and is imprecise. Therefore, I think it would be best to change the introduction to Hamtramck to something along the lines of: "With a large proportion of Arabs, Bangladeshis and Bosnians, Hamtramck is believed to have one of the largest per capita rates of Muslims in the US, along with nearby Dearborn." And the introduction to Dearborn could say: "With 55% of its population identifying as Arab, Dearborn is believed to have one of the largest per capita rates of Muslims in the US, along with nearby Hamtramck." And then have these statistics in the article to back it up, but not make assertions about the Muslim population that we don't know to be true.

Please let me know any thoughts on my logic, or if someone can steer me in the right direction towards some more reliable statistics/surveys that would help to back up any of these points. Mik Kanrokitoff (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamtramck,_Michigan&oldid=1228225088"