Talk:Oakland, California/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

FBI investigates city bureaucracy

New article in SFGate: FBI issues subpoena to Oakland officials. The water is getting hotter for some downtown folks. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oaksterdam University

From the edit history of this article: 14:24, September 16, 2008 Binksternet (Talk | contribs) (92,530 bytes) (→Colleges and universities: Oaksterdam University is a minor trade school and is not accredited--its having been in the news is a non-issue) (undo)

Are all of the colleges listed here accredited? Is the fact that Oaksterdam University is, a "minor" school make it less worthy of mention here? I'd note it is, in any event, new and one of a kind in the country. What about it's notability in the national news media is a non-issue? I think that makes a difference in terms of an encyclopedic article about higher learning in Oakland. This business college now has prominent visibility at it's new campus at the corner of 19th and Broadway downtown. I do think it should be noted as private, and for-profit...if so. But I do believe it deserves some mention because of its political and sociological significance here in Oakland, and how it defines a part of the city from a geographic standpoint. I'd note, National Geographic television did a special on the university and neighborhood. I can try to include sources on that if appropriate. Perhaps you might explain in greater detail why this college should be excluded from the list. Are business colleges worthy their own category here?... separate from the main "colleges and universities list"Critical Chris (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the other colleges and universities in the list are accredited. The list should only represent accredited schools. If we allowed other businesses in, the list would be unmanageable with hundreds of beautician's schools, driving schools, charm schools, dance schools, private tutors, tax help, flying lessons and music instruction included. I'd prefer not to have a gigantic section of business schools on the Oakland page.

Do you have a personal involvement with Oaksterdam University? If so, it may be coloring your view. Objectively, the school can be viewed as ground-breaking in concept, as an interesting idea with a frightening legal sword hanging over it or as a calculated way for its founders to reap the harvest (so to speak) of interest in the subject. I wonder how many new entrepreneurs trained by the school will be able to support themselves in the market...? At any rate, my musings and the newsworthiness of the school aren't at issue. The list is about important Oakland schools and good ole Oaksterdam U. isn't (yet) one of them. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)'

No, no personal involvement in the school whatsoever. I don't own it, never have worked there, never taken a class there, have not had any political/legal involvement with it either....have you? Also, I have no problem with a list of business schools on this article, in the context of their regional and national notoriety and Oakland's economic development.Critical Chris (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've never had any dealings with O.U. Regarding non-accredited Oakland schools: how about their own article/list? Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Spin off the "History" section?

This article has a great history section. However it's quite long relative to the overall article. It would be a good candiate for spinning off into a daughter article. Many cities have separate history articles. Category:Histories of cities in the United States Moving it would be easy. The harder part would be creating a suitable summary to leave behind. Any takers?   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, especially since I've been thinking of adding yet more material to the current history section. What happened to Oakland during the Great Depression? A separate article would help keep the size in check. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Riots, Anyone?

Well, there are now ongoing riots in Oakland over the BART shooting. The article would be remiss to not mention this. Perhaps the riots should get their own page? The Angry Wiki-Nerd (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything added about the riots should not stray too far into Wikipedia:Recentism. Whatever articles or sentences you add should keep in mind the long-term viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They're certainly notable on some level in relation to the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant, as they've been covered by local, regional, national, and international news media. CriticalChris 10:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture accompanying the article with the description "Protesters holding signs on January 8, 2009 the day after rioting" looks a little odd. It appears to show just a couple people walking across the street carrying some signs. Doesn't look much like a protest - certainly the people in the background don't appear to be very impressed. Jmdeur (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OPD Memorial Wall

The official OPD Memorial Wall lists 47 (soon to be 51) officers killed in the line of duty. http://www.oaklandpolice.com/geninfo/memorial.html Timothy B. Howe April 14, 1995 was actually part of the Oakland Unified School District Police Department. Officer Howe was shot and killed while making a traffic stop on Crosby Avenue in East Oakland. Because he was performing his duties in Oakland, OPD has him listed on the Memorial Wall. The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc. lists only 50 instead of 51 officers for Oakland PD http://www.odmp.org/agency/2872-oakland-police-department-california as Officer Howe is listed under OUSD-PD http://www.odmp.org/agency/2873-oakland-unified-school-district-police-department-california . Petersam (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Used the quote parameter of the cite:web template to add "Note: See Oakland Unified School District Police Department for additional Oakland officer." It will be displayed down at the Reference section - "Honoring all fallen members of the Oakland Police Department". The Officer Down Memorial Page. Otherwise readers will get confused about why the Officer Down Memorial Page only lists 50 officers when the OPD Memorial Wall lists 51. Petersam (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways of adding notes besides using the quote syntax for something that's not a quote. I'd like to see a different solution. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As there was no response from Petersam, I removed the quote syntax used for the purpose of notes. A technicality, true, but not necessary. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping you would find the solution, not remove it! So, finally found it at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes Petersam (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Add Food waste link?

Can we add a link on Food waste because there is a lot of poverty in Oakland, & people are starving because they can't afford to buy the food. Of course that's true for all big US cities, & small ones too, so it should be added to all articles about large cities, where it's worse, but this is a good place to start. Is that Ok? Stars4change (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cutting of sourced material from the Oakland article

I see that Voluntary Slave reinstated sourced material that I went to a great deal of trouble to add several months back. In fact this material is critical to understanding Oakland's current culture, and I resent your having removed it. What I don't understand is why you felt compelled to do so. Apostle12 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this material because it's straight up opinion material written by a conservative political think tank writer for the Manhattan Institute. It is not a fact-checked, mainstream, reliable source, and does not fit WP:RS. In any event, unlike many think tank manifestos, it is utterly lacking in references or citations to back it's specious claims and statistics. I'll be reverting VS' reversion for the same reasons. CriticalChris 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are badly mistaken on this one. "City Journal" is a publication that has gained respect nationwide; it is far from being, as you seem to be implying, some sort of conservative rag. The article you wish to eliminate as a source is of particularly high quality, the statistics included in the article are above reproach, and the accuracy and sourcing of "City Journal" reporters have never been questioned--much less can they be labeled "specious." In fact you seem to be mounting an ad hominem attack on this particular writer, rather than countering the article's content with sourced material.

I trust you will be reconsidering another reversion. To do so would represent an attempt to repress a legitimate point of view, and I will feel compelled to counter any such attempt. Differing points of view have every right to be represented in this article, as they provide perspective and balance. Perhaps you wish to eliminate any opinion not voiced by bonafide "progressive" sources--if so that amounts to POV pushing on your part. Apostle12 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Far from a "conservative rag?" Please educate yourself about the Manhattan Institute and its poltical agenda; such organizations are by definition incapable of making a respectable publication of record. Would you say a Brookings Institution, periodical ought to be referenced and quoted out of context and without attribution? How are the stats "above reproach" if there's no references as to source? I question Mac Donald's accounting of federal dollars, for example, the percentage of Oaklanders "on welfare" in the 1980s could actually have been much higher than the 20% that Mac Donald lists...."the accuracy and sourcing of "City Journal" reporters have never been questioned..." Hah! I'm questioning it now in terms of WP:RS Is that tantamount to an argumentum ad hominem in your opinion? A conservative (or progressive) point of view might have a place in a WP article, but should not be quoted out of context and weaved in under the auspices of a WP:RS as though it were a newspaper source. CriticalChris 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that City Journal doesn't cite their sources so that we can see how they arrived at their conclusions, but the article is no more nor no less well reliable than many others in use here. I think the additions taken from the piece should stay, and if conflicting information is available then it can be added as such, with a description of the conflict. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be implying, CC, that newspaper sources are by rights more reliable than reputable journals. This is not, however, my experience. Neither publish their sources, primarily because to do so would compromise economic viability, and neither are worthy of 100% of our trust. Yet, over time, one does arrive at a general conclusion with regard to historical accuracy, both with respect to a particular publication and particular authors. In the case of "City Journal" and MacDonald, I would submit that both have reputations for a high degree of accuracy and integrity. Nevertheless, if you wish to submit alternate sources that you believe are more accurate, and if as a result you wish to increase the article's stated percentage of Oaklanders on welfare or change the accounting of federal dollars, that would be quite alright. What I object to is the wholesale elimination of sourced material merely on the strength of your obvious distaste for conservative publications. (By the way, I consider the "conservative" and "progressive" labels woefully inadequate, as I consider myself a progressive who pursues a nuanced, enlightened approach that values anything that gets us closer to the truth--sometimes that's a progressive source/author, and sometimes that's a conservative source/author.) I agree with Binksternet's balanced approach as stated above.Apostle12 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as much as some of us deride the Washington Post as a neo-con/neo-lib rag, for example, such news sources, particularly those of so-called mainstream, fact-checked major news sources, are given special credence and credibility here on Wikipedia. Please avail yourself of this policy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations While MacDonald (assuming it's the same Heather MacDonald) may have written for the Trib, and cultivated a reputation as a "reputable journalist" (in your opinion) she was clearly in op/ed mode in her "City Journal" magazine article for the free market/law-n-order Manhattan Institute think tank. I, in no uncertain terms, dispute your assertion that "City Journal" has a "reputation for a high degree of accuracy and integrity." It's unmitigated think tank opinion periodical and as per WP:RS "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Sorry, but you're going to have to provide greater attribution to MacDonald for her statements of opinion here, her City Journal article is not a news source and doesn't deserve to be treated as such. CriticalChris 10:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently spoke with a former member of the Tribune staff who confirmed that the Heather MacDonald that wrote for the Oakland Tribune is NOT the same Heather MacDonald who writes for The Manhattan Institute think tank's 'City Journal' magazine, or who wrote this book - "Are Cops Racist,? How the War Against the Police Harms Black Americans" http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cops/ CriticalChris 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)