<article_title>Atlanta</article_title>
<edit_user>Keizers</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, March 18, 2011 5:51:12 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>addressed population controversy with shorter reference in Intro and details in Demographics section - this is a serious dispute of the census figures so please do not revert unless explaining reasons in Dicsussion page</edit_comment>
<edit_text><strong><strike>As of the 2009 American Community Survey, the city of Atlanta had a population of 540,921, an increase of 28% from the 2000 Census.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_4co-id.html |title=Table 4 - Colorado through Idaho |publisher=Fbi.gov |date= |accessdate=2010-04-05}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;
</strike></strong><strong>2010 Census figures indicated a population of 420,003 - 22.4% lower than 2009 estimates of 540,921.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_4co-id.html |title=Table 4 - Colorado through Idaho |publisher=Fbi.gov |date= |accessdate=2010-04-05}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}&lt;/ref&gt;. The huge difference between the 2010 official count and the 2009 estimates caused many to question the reliability of the 2010 count, including Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/bbf0944379d340d093fdd623ccaae69b/GA--Census-Georgia/ &quot;Census data shows Atlanta barely grew over past 10 years as surrounding counties were booming&quot;, Associated Press, March 17, 2010]&lt;/ref&gt;. 
</strong>
According to the 2009 American Community Survey, the racial composition of Atlanta was as follows:</edit_text>
<turn_user>Keizers<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, March 18, 2011 8:39:54 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Population dispute</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>This article is about the city of Atlanta in its entirity, covering its history, culture, economy, etc. The Lead is to be a brief summary of the basic salient points of the article. I can't see how the population dispute merits a mention in the second line of the article. I agree it needs to be covered, but that should be done in the main text of the article, which is where the other editor moved it. Be sure the section includes the other viewpoint, which is that the estimate my have been too high, and that many federal dollars are based on a city's population, which is the root of the cause of the outcry by the mayor. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Actually I moved it to the Demographics section in deference to your remarks that it shouldn't be in the lead. I trust that there is no problem with indicating it is a census figure and cannot for the moment be stated as a fact. You are right that federal dollars are one reason to be upset, but it is only an opinion that that is why the mayor is contesting the census results. Atlanta is the only city in the country with such a gap between estimates and 2010 census figures. And anyone who lives in the City of Atlanta knows that the intown parts of the City have been growing fast and so analysis is required as to how growth could be virtually zero since 2000.Keizers (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I would have to agree that it belongs in the demographics section. A lead is no place for disputed facts, and discrepancies. The lead should state the census data and the demographics should state the discrepancies and theories. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Actually I moved it to the Demographics section in deference to your remarks that it shouldn't be in the lead. I trust that there is no problem with indicating it is a census figure and cannot for the moment be stated as a fact. You are right that federal dollars are one reason to be upset, but it is only an opinion that that is why the mayor is contesting the census results. Atlanta is the only city in the country with such a gap between estimates and 2010 census figures. And anyone who lives in the City of Atlanta knows that the intown parts of the City have been growing fast and so analysis is required as to how growth could be virtually zero since 2000.</turn_text>