Jump to content

Talk:Oakland, California/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This and that

Added some links to other Oakland articles. Worked on the images, the night view of Oakland's downtown image could use a trim, too much sky, (does anyone know how to do that?) but now it is a better visual of what it is describing. Created some columns, changed some headers and moved and added sentence in lead. Whew! Input? Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of emphasis on crime info in the "60/70's section. Should some of it be moved to crime? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If you feel it is noteworthy, sure; I feel the Crime section is already overlong and excessively detailed, however.--Chimino (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The treatment of crime info in the 60s/70s section is appropriate, because that is when crime began to escalate in Oakland. Prior to the 1960s, Oakland was rather a peaceful city. The Black Panthers had a lot to do with the increase--their objection to police brutality was legitimate, however they promoted an attitude of general lawlessness and they gave sanction to much criminal activity, especially drug dealing, extortion, and prostitution. Journalist Hugh Pearson ("Shadow of the Panthers") has criticized the Panthers for sparking a "romance with the gun" in Oakland's black community, as well as in urban black communities nationwide. During his later years, Panther Minister of Information Eldridge Cleaver agreed with this assessment.
The rise of the Hells Angels during the 1960s didn't help. Just noticed that references to drug criminal Felix Mitchell were deleted; he was quite an important player, and I am inclined to put him back in. I think it's important for readers to realize that Oakland was not always a "high-crime" city, and it needn't remain so. What began during the 1960s can be reversed. Apostle12 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed C, so tweaked that section a bit. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle, your remarks kinda confused me and I almost mussed them being out of sequence. Chimino Help! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry...not always sure where comments should be placed!Apostle12 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think Apostle has a bit of an agenda here. Crime elevated in the 1960s and 70s across the nation due to the escalation in heroin use, and easier access to guns by criminals. I think a brief note re: big-time players like Felix Mitchell is okay, but eventually Apostle may want to create a separate article for the history and details of Crime in Oakland, as has been done for New York.--Chimino (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Felix Mitchell and the Black Panthers should remain in the 1960s section to help explain the crime. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion Chimino! The history of crime in Oakland during the 1960s and 1970s is a big subject, especially with the unique influence of the Black Panthers, the Hells Angels and various other individuals and groups. I suppose there will never be full agreement as to why crime rates rose so markedly during this period; undoubtedly many factors were involved. (Just as baffling is why crime rates are now falling nationwide. An even larger topic that defies easy analysis.)
I suppose you are correct that I do have, as you put it, "a bit of an agenda." That's because I, family members, and friends have been victims of serious violent crime in Oakland, and I believe the status quo is unacceptable. The first step toward positive change will be recognizing and understanding the problem. This article can help. Apostle12 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, the crime section would have 2-3 sentences on current rates and perceptions, a short paragraph on the history (heroin, Mitchell, BPP, etc) and perhaps a note on police shortages. Everything else, such as the rates of each particular crime, neighborhoods affected, police staffing compared to other cities, and ethnography data would be better suited for a seperate article. It does work for other city articles, and the seperate crime articles provide detailed data for those who seek it.--Chimino (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, Apostle12, since you have acknowledged your POV and "agenda", you should remove yourself from the article. Just a suggestion. Cordially, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I protest such a removal. Apostle12 has shown great skill in helping build the article. We all have points of view, but many of us are able to write neutrally despite them. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Birk , you are protesting a cordial suggestion? LOL! I am still figgering out who is whom here! Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Binksternet. I believe my "agenda" is a healthy one, since it merely involves shining a bright light on the problem. All Wiki writers have agendas DocofSoc--you, for example, are an admitted Oakland booster, and there is nothing wrong with that. We write about topics we care about, and I care about the city of my birth. Your suggestion that I remove myself from the article does seem a bit impertinent; closing with the word "cordially" doesn't make it a cordial suggestion. Apostle12 (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand why edits on this page get to to be so defensive. I never said I was a "booster". Precisely I said I "Like it" and I visit often on business. The tone here sometimes deteriorates to be as unfriendly as the Oakland Airport, one of the rudest I have encountered in my extensive travels. I just made a suggestion following Wiki guidelines per NPOV, in no way impertinent. I make a great effort to be cordial and would appreciate reciprocity. I apologize that my "suggestion" was construed as anything but a "suggestion" Please let us cease the nitpicking and go forward as a positive team. Working together, there has been great improvement in the article so let us continue in that vein. Sincerely — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if, just occasionally, you would own some of your sh__....Apostle12 (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle is fine to work on the article and his edits should speak for themselves, same as the rest of us. Let's get back to what we do best, guys.--Chimino (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree about Apostle having a certain agenda which emphasizes crime and places an emphasis on portraying Oakland as a "Black city," a big priority. Apostle claims that he, his family and friends habe been victims of violent crime in Oakland and therefore he has a right to fill the Oakland article with a huge amount of crime content. How many people have been victims of crime in San Francisco without so much a word about crime in San Francisco being allowed in the SF article? Cities like Detroit and Saint Louis have higher crime rates than Oakland but far less crime content in their articles. I think Oakland has far too much crime content in its article. Oakland has the most crime content of ANY city article of ANY other city on Wikepedia and we know that Oakland is not the crime capital of the nation.98.210.215.121 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle12 has every right to edit this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In 2008, the City of Oakland ranked #5 in crime nationwide. By comparison, Richmond was #9, Vallejo #67, San Francisco #102, #Hayward 125 and Berkeley #132. Please see http://www.ktvu.com/news/18056181/detail.html.
I have never placed any emphasis on "portraying Oakland as a 'Black city." That would be inaccurate in any case; on what do you base this assertion?
I have never professed any "right to fill the Oakland article with a huge amount of crime content." I am merely one of many editors whose consensus it is that Oakland's crime problem needs to be described accurately. Apostle12 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has already included a snippet regarding out of context crime which was just reported in the San Francisco media. The sentence "Oakland has three shootings a day" is without context as to how many shootings per day other cities in the United States such as San Francisco, New York, Detroit or Saint Louis average per day. Reporting specific crimes,and how often per day they occurr in a certain city,are not mentioned for any other city other than Oakland. Also, the crime section states that "Oakland's crime rate grew to twice that of "San Francisco and New York." How's that possible when San Francisco has twice the crime rate of New York? It's obvious that we have editors here ready to pounce on any negative tidbit spewed by the SF media and right away included it in this Oakland article. Why do we need to include how many shootings per day Oakland has been averaging? How many shootigs per day does SF average? How many in Richmond, New York, Detroit, Saint Louis, Dallas, etc. Should we include every specific crime for every city and how many times they ocr each day? Or is this constant Oakland vilification with mention of specific daily crime figures reserved just for Oakland?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

When one adds a well-sourced piece of information to the Oakland article, it is hardly incumbent on that editor to visit the articles on San Francisco, New York, Detroit and other cities and add similar information to those articles--that would be up to the involved editors of those city articles.
The quote from Chief Batts, while made in the context of a specific crime that occurred this week when a three-year old boy was gunned down in a drive-by shooting, is highly relevant to the general situation in Oakland and is included for that reason. Incidentally, this tragic shooting has finally awoken many Oaklanders who otherwise would not co-operate with police in tracking down the shooters; the code of silence on which Oakland criminals rely is finally breaking down.
The first sentence of the second paragraph states ""Oakland's crime rate began to escalate during the late 1960s, and by the end of the 1970s Oakland's per capita murder rate had risen to twice that of San Francisco or New York City." This sentence is not referring to present crime rates, as New York City crime has been drastically reduced by effective policing during the past two decades. It refers to crime rates that existed "by the end of the 1970s." I previously provided you with crime stats comparing Oakland with other cities after you implied that Oakland's crime problem was not unusual; the stats showed otherwise, yet you ignored this information. No one is attempting to vilify Oakland; the objective here is to accurately describe the problem and inspire positive change. Apostle12 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Recapping crime stats:
Oakland (a notably dangerous Bay Area city) vs. San Jose (a notably safer Bay Area city): http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=San+Jose&s2=CA
Now, Oakland vs. New York: http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=New+York&s2=NY
Finally, Oakland vs. San Francisco: :http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Oakland+&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA Apostle12 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the "Crime" section--sources

Quite a bit of sourced material was removed by an unnamed editor during today's edits. There also seems to be some confusion: For example, when the first sentence of the second paragraph states "Oakland's crime rate began to escalate during the late 1960s, and by the end of the 1970s Oakland's per capita murder rate had risen to twice that of San Francisco or New York City," this sentence is not referring to present crime rates, as New York City crime has been drastically reduced by effective policing during the past two decades. It refers to crime rates that existed "by the end of the 1970s." This statement was well-sourced at one time, and many more sources existed in various other parts of the "Crime" section. When I objected recently that hard-won sourcing was being eliminated during editing, one editor responded that this didn't matter because such sources could be easily retrieved from history.

Actually such retrieval is very time-consuming and often not possible at all. Please preserve the sources, and please do not arbitrarily remove sourced material. Meanwhile I will attempt to track down the sourcing for the first sentence of the second paragraph. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all there is nothing in the SF Gate article cited stating that "Oakland averages three shootings a day." That article speaks of the shooting of the three year old boy but states nothing of what you attribute in your quoted reference.

Also, the entry "Oakland is known as the crime capital of the Bay Area." has just been included without any proper sourcing. The source listed does not mention this, and even if it did, the information is incorrect since Richmond CA has in the past had a higher crime and homicide rate. It's obvious that we have an over zealous editor who wants to put Oakland in a scary and negative light at every opportunity. Special:Contributions/98.210.215.121|98.210.215.121]] (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I was the one who added "crime capital", taken from a 1983 edition of National Journal. Don't go jumping to conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again, your allegations are highly inaccurate:
From the SF Gate article: "Police Chief Anthony Batts said Carlos' killing appears to have been a wake-up call for the city. Oakland averages three shootings a day, but since Carlos' death only one shooting has been reported, he said. And unlike in many homicide investigations, witnesses were eager to cooperate this time, said police Lt. Brian Medeiros." The point is not to vilify Oakland; it is to underscore the relevance of street violence in Oakland that all-too-often injures or kills innocent bystanders.
Editor Binksternet added the entry about Oakland having become known as the crime capital of the San Francisco Bay Area. That was not my contribution. I trust Binksternet's source; his sourcing is usually impeccable, and the verifiability of a source does not depend on direct on-line accessability.
My admission to having an "agenda" was a bit tongue-in-cheek. In any case, my agenda is not against Oakland; it is for a safer, better Oakland. I am opposed to Oakland criminals; IMHO they have no place in a sane society, and any city that tolerates criminality cannot prosper. Apostle12 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, why would you go find an article from 1983 to malign Oakland? What does a statement in a 28 year old article have to do with modern day Oakland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of the National Journal assessment is that during the late 1960s and 1970s something changed in Oakland. What had been a peaceful city with a low crime rate all during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s became a violent, crime-ridden city--by at least 1983, "the violent crime capital of the San Francisco Bay Area." That was significant development that deserves mention in the "Crime" section of Oakland's Wikipedia article. Historical perspective is relevant today, because it can point the way towards a solution. The question we need to ask is "How can we find our way back to Oakland's pre-1960s identity as a safe city with a low crime rate where young people are not vulnerable to gang pressure in the schools (ask any student of an Oakland public high school about "jumping"), where citizens don't take their lives in their hands being on the street at night, and where peer pressure to get involved in illegal activities does not result in high rates of incarceration that destroy young lives.Apostle12 (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe a statement such as "known as the 'crime capital of the Bay Area' in the 1980's" would be more appropriate. I also agree the Crime section is far too long and needs to be made a separate article, as I've stated previously.--Chimino (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The source I found says that Oakland became known as the "crime capital" of the SF Bay Area because of 1960s and 1970s increases in crime. The source was published in 1983 so it would not be able to support a statement about all of the '80s. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Was going to suggest a separate article myself. The article is getting too heavy both literally and figuratively. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The dilemma becomes how to inform the casual reader of the reality of Oakland's crime problem, including providing sufficient historical perspective, while reducing the size of the section. I agree that a separate article would be good, as many points actually require expansion to fully explain the reality. However the "Crime" section cannot become so minimalist that it fails to inform. As far as "heaviness" is concerned; it is a heavy topic and an even heavier burden for those who live and work in Oakland. Apostle12 (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, it should inform, but reflect the Crime sections of Featured Article cities, such as Detroit, Boston, San Francisco, etc. The kind of detail you wish to include, including the Police Understaffing section, are not of appropriate length for the main article. You can describe the current crime rate, and its history, in a couple short paragraphs to give the reader a general idea of the issue, allowing them to explore more deeply in the more lengthy Crime in Oakland article should they choose. Again, this is not my personal opinion, but the precedent which has been set by other, higher standard articles.--Chimino (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll read the Detroit article, however I doubt any hard and fast rules apply. My question will be "Is Detroit winning its battles against crime and depopulation?" Apostle12 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are no rules per se, but FA articles are the "gold standard" of WP, and a better gauge of true "consensus" than a handful of editors who may be working on an article at any given time. The main articles of any broad subject (such as a city) are essentially a summary, and not meant to offer deep analysis of any given topic matter. I think you'll find such consensus on any FA/GA city article.--Chimino (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC

Chimino, I agree with you regarding not inserting crime in the lead paragraphs. Detroit doesn't have it, Saint Louis doesn't have it, Baltimore doesn't have it and San Francisco doesn't have it. Crime does not belong in the lead. Also, we need a seperate article for crime references. Another question. Why does Oakland have a "Police staffing" section? Is this an encyclopedia or an Oakland Police Union publicity sheet? We need to point out that Baltimore, Saint Louis and Detroit all have far more cops than Oakland along with more crime to show for it. It also needs to be mentioned that Oakland has the most expensive cops in the nation therefore Oakland can't afford a larger police force. What do you think? We need balance in the "Polics Staffing" section.98.210.215.121 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I rearranged the Crime subsection in the Demographics section, to lead with a statement about 2010. The most recent evidence of Oakland's decreased crime rates is what readers seek - not statistics about 1960s. Further, I don't see a need for this subsection at all. There is already a Crime section on it's own - what's the point of repeating crime talk?12.71.59.210 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oakland Police Union publicity sheet?Apostle12 (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible Impact of Wikipedia article

I have been meaning to mention something that may, or may not, be a coincidence. When editor DocofSoc recently added the section delineating understaffing of the Oakland Police Department, one of the items highlighted was that OPD had lost twenty officers since Jean Quan became mayor. Within just a few days, all twenty officers had been reinstated. Apostle12 (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Would be good to get these numbers straight and avoid redundancy" Ahem... I Beg to differ, she is....nevermind. She has taken 5 weeks out of the country while her city is in crisis. I am a Sociologist. The first things I learned were manipulate the data, and it depends on whom you ask in your sample.

Still a HUGE net loss.
went to three different sites which said Oakland was 3rd, 5th and sixthAND the 4th site U.S News and world Report did NOT list Oakland in the top 11 of dangerous citoes. SO, it DOES depend on whom you ask. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We probably shouldn't be discussing the subject itself on the Talk page, but it's fairly apparent police staffing is far down the line of Quan priorities, and she's only done what she has due to public pressure, and the threat of Batts leaving the department within her first month of office. She's already run John Russo out of town, so there is still time for Batts to leave due to her incompetence and failed sociopolitical policies. Anyway, that's my rant for the year.--Chimino (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It is possible Quan believes the fewer police the better. And her much-publicized earlier choice of the satanic number "666" as the staffing goal for OPD was hardly an accident. I think anything's fair game on Talk--the article, now that's another matter! Apostle12 (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
She was arrested for blocking the police from doing their job while looters were tearing up downtown businesses, only a few months before her (s)election as mayor, blamed lack of employment opportunities for Oakland's youth after being the victim of street robbery herself, and has her personal lawyer as an advisor usurping the duties of the City Attorney, who just happens to be the same guy fighting the gang injunctions masterminded by Batts and (attempted to be) carried out by Russo. She definitely has a dog in this fight, and it isn't law and order. Her propaganda machine continually vandalising her Wikipedia page in her favor doesn't exactly improve my perceptions of her either.--Chimino (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe your observations are correct.Apostle12 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forbes claim

After searching for a verifiable link on the Forbes "Best" claim, I found only once source stating it was ranked #10 for business climate, and that was the Fox Theater website which shows the ranking from 2001. This year's list[1] has it ranked #122, so I removed the claim from the lead.--Chimino (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The continued edit warring being perpetuated by 98.210.215.121 is alternately hilarious and frustrating, but may ultimately result in intervention by WP administration.--Chimino (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Today's sequence re: business ranking was especially revealing. Wikipedia administration really does need to get involved here and get this user blocked. It is hard to keep up with the damage he is causing. Between the attacks on Talk and today's "editing," 98.210.215.121 is hands-down the most trollish and disruptive personality I have encountered on Wikipedia. You were right to call out yesterday's attacks as attempts to draw attention.Apostle12 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review, August 2011

I was referred to this page by a note from Chimono on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I've read through the article and I agree that it has to be parred down significantly. There seems to be absolutely zero regard for Wikipedia:Summary style with seemingly just as much information dumped into the main page as humanly possible. There are also many sections that read like a travel guide.

This article is at 11,000 words. Compare to the largest cities in the country (New York City at 9,000 words and Los Angeles at 7,500 words). While word count isn't everything, it does indicate that there's a problem. This article should probably be using Minneapolis as a guide, which is a featured article of 6,400 words. The article makes a especially good model since the city has almost the exact population size and area of Oakland. All editors who continue work on this article should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia guidelines for U.S. cities.

To start with, the lead is far too convoluted for general readers to pick out the truly important information. Everything in the lead should be a summary of information already cited in the main body of the article. In addition, rankings should be used sparingly in articles and should almost never appear in the lead. Including a whole bunch of rankings is often viewed as simple "puffery" and degrades the overall quality of an article. The lead should stick exclusively to name and location, population, historical roots/foundation, primary industries and/or employment, and a few of the most important and unique characteristics of the city (which, almost by definition, does not include rankings). Note that the lead at Minneapolis is half the length.

For the history section, I would very simply create a new History of Oakland, California article and then dump the entire section there with a new lead. Then summarize each of the current sections into 2-3 sentence paragraphs for the main article. Much of the information presented here is weighted very heavily to recent current events. Things like a ballet and the death of a newspaper owner are basically news events and are relatively unimportant when viewed in the context of 150 years of history.

Information on neighborhoods (including "there's no there, there"), climate, and parks are all part of geography. Anything about immigration, ethnic makeup, socio-economics (incomes), religion, and crime (except law enforcement which goes under government), all goes under demographics. Arts, attractions, cultural events, and maybe sports should all be put under a section on Culture. Shipping/Port of Oakland is part of the economy, as can information on healthcare since it is such a large part of the Oakland economy. Wherever possible, lists and charts should be converted to prose where practical and lists should never just sit out in section by themselves; this is not a directory. In addition, external links should be eliminated in the body of the article and used sparingly only in their separate section at end of the article.

Since there is some active editing going on, I would ask for the editors agree on making these major changes before getting into an edit war. I'll have this page watched but feel free to contact me with other questions! Best, epicAdam(talk) 03:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, epicAdam. I have stated more than once on this talk page FA city articles should be the blueprint, and you may a good point re: Minneapolis due to the similar size and scope of the two cities. City articles are essentially summaries of their whole parts, which can be made into separate articles. I hope other editors here will agree with and follow your assessments.--Chimino (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to work with the other editors to move various sections to separate articles. Until then, could we please leave them intact since much work has gone into researching the material, writing the entries and finding appropriate sources. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a problem, Apostle. Perhaps in the meantime, we can move the loose sections to their appropriate designation, and go from there.--Chimino (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Good assessment by Admin. Much of which we have discussed previously. I have an article that needs some emergency editing so I will be back in a couple days.
This also avoids too many cooks in the kitchen ;-) TTFN — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Adam, you should know that this Oakland article is being manipulated by editors with agendas. Editor Binksternet is a main editor of the San Francisco page and regularly includes negative fear inducing information about Oakland in this article. I believe editor Binksternet has a conflict of interest and is working for San Francisco interests. This Oakland article has been shaped by individuals with agendas against the fine city of Oakland. Please do something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle, please don't play the victim here. You know that before I began making a fuss you, Binksternet and Chimino had turned this Oakland article into a huge crime blog and police blotter. Adam, the Oakland article had a huge crime section far bigger than any other city in Wikipedia. Detroit, Saint Louis with higher crime rates had a fraction of the content that these individuals had inserted in the Oakland article over time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have never added to the Crime section, in fact quite the opposite. I removed about half of the material in attempts to bring it more in-line with the rest of the article, as the talk history above will attest. Before continuing to make further unfounded accusations, anonymous, you should own up to your own agenda, which appears to be to make this Wikipedia article into the travel guide Adam warned about above. You're quick to accuse, less inclined to own up to your own actions, which by all appearances makes you a troll. You may wish to address the issues put forth on your talk page, before you cause further disruption here.--Chimino (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This really is getting ridiculous. I just visited the "San Francisco" article where I notice anonymous's editing today has been spotted by multiple editors as massively disruptive, just as on the "Oakland" article. Specifically anonymous has repeatedly attempted to add bogus information about crime to the SF article, which information was summarily reverted. Binksternet's involvement with the SF article has been almost nil, at least as far back as I was able to survey the history of the article. What say you Binksternet? Or should we just ignore this silly fellow? If ever I felt blocking an editor was in order, this would be such an occasion. Apostle12 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Apostle, adding referenced material regarding San Francisco's per square mile crime rate or adding well sourced information regarding San Francisco's high crime downtown neighborhoods of the Tenderloin, Mid Market, 6th Street, Civic Center, and South of Market is not "bogus" information. Since the San Francisco article doesn't even have a crime section and the only reference to crime in the entire article is "Hunter's Point has an elevated rate of crime." Id figure that the SF travel guide needed some balance. What's the excuse for this cabal of editors allowing the Oakland History Section from the 70's,80's,90's and 2000, to read like a chronological crime blog? What's the excuse for allowing a huge Oakland crime article filled with daily crime snippets inserted to create fear about Oakland? Can you answer these questions or are you going to play victim and defend Editor Binksternet who is very involved in the San Francisco article. Go look at the SF discussion page and you'll see the extent of his involvement.98.210.215.121 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Going back a year, Binksternet appears very seldom in the SF discussion page. The only relevant entry happened back in January, 2011 when an anonymous editor (24.23.231.199) suggested a "Crime" section for the SF article. This editor's writing sounded a lot like your writing. Binksternet agreed that a "Crime" section would be a good idea and offered some specific suggestions. You really do seem to have a problem with accuracy. Apostle12 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet was heavily involved in the San Francisco page long before January, 2011. Binksternet has contributed entire articles regarding San Francisco. Binkerstenet has curtailed his San Francisco discussion page involment since he was outed back in January. You need to look back further. As you can see San Francisco has virtually no references to crime and any references are quickly deleted. The information you call "bogus" regarding San Francisco crime was referenced from neighborhood Scout and is right here http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime/ ````
Just went back to October 2009, and no, Binksternet has not been heavily involved in the San Francisco page. And he was not "outed" in January--these are lies. The other SF editors reverted you because you came to bogus conclusions based on a questionable source, which is OR. I agree with the other editors; your behavior on this page is trollish. Apostle12 (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oy. What a mess. First thing, 98..., is to always assume good faith among editors. Just because you disagree with edits is not a reason to resort accusations or conspiracy theories about (not so) hidden agendas. However, I agree that information about crime (along with other topics) is given undue weight in this main article. This problem can be remedied quite easily with appropriate use of sub-articles as recommended in the summary guidelines. As for right now, everyone should just take a breath and a step back. If you see that multiple editors are reverting edits you have made, that is often a sign to stop trying to make that same edit and bring it up for discussion. At the end of the day, this is just a Wikipedia article and everything will sort itself out. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam, I went to the San Francisco discussion page and found that Editor Binksternet had made at least 23 contributions between April 11, 2009 and April 14, 2011. When I brought up my concerns that Oakland's article was filled with crime from the History section to the huge Crime section and San Francisco's had no crime section at all and virtually no mention of crime, his response was, "Let them burry their heads in the sand." He also said "I live in Oakland and I feel that this is good for Oakland. I think the crime content should stand." You can make whatever you want out of this.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You said editor Binksternet was "a main editor of the San Francisco page" and that he "has contributed entire artices regarding San Francisco." Obviously with only 23 contributions (didn't count them myself, but that sounds about right), neither of your statements are true. And Binksternet's 23 contributions were not major, rather very short and to the point. Consider yourself outed, you miserable troll! Apostle12 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made at least 63,800 edits on Wikipedia that were not part of the San Francisco page. It is quite entertaining to me to see someone try to prove my conflicted involvement because of 0.04% of my edits. You might also point out that I should never edit the North American P-51 Mustang page because of my many edits at the page of its domestic competitor Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Or maybe I should not edit the Susan B. Anthony page because I spent so much effort working on the Lucy Stone page. LOL. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, that's fine. I won't argue with you anymore. I think the content of your edits speak more than the number of your edits. This very dark Oakland article speaks for itself. Apostle, please refrain from personal attacks. Why not burry the hatchet and all work together to improve this gloomy article. I found this information which I plan to use in the Crime section. " Just eight of Oakland's 35 policing beats--those in the far ends of the city--account for 92% of the city's homicides." Is everyone OK with this information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The information is fine and, I assume, accurate.
However this paragraph now reads "In 2008, 33 percent of homicides occurred in patrol beats 27, 29, and 35 which include just 11% of the city's population. Homicides were disproportionately concentrated: 72% occurred in three City Council districts, District 3 in West Oakland and Districts 6 and 7 in East Oakland, even though these districts represent only 44% of Oakland's residents.[101] Eight of Oakland's 35 policing beats are responsible for 92% of homicides in the city.[102]" That's a mouthful, and I can't make heads or tails of it. Most people (incuding me) don't know where patrol beats 27, 29, and 35 are located. Nor are they familiar with the boundaries of the City Council districts.
I think we could scratch the first two sentences and just use your sentence--saying that 92% of homicides occur in eight of Oakland's 35 policing beats is a pretty clear statement and gets the idea across that crime is concentrated in certain areas. Apostle12 (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle, I agree with you. You make a good point. The last sentence should be enough to get the point across. Let's use the last sentence which states "Eight of the 35 Policing beats are responsible for 92% of the homicides in the city." The article in SFgate also stated that these 8 policing beats are located in the far ends of the city in East and West Oakland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How about working together to fix this mess?

Honestly, this Oakland article needs so much help. Compared to the San Francisco article, this is a dark, depressing article lacking in information. The "Neighborhoods" section is plain awful and doesn't describe the neighborhoods, the different business districts, the walkability and interconectivity between neighborhoods. The section doesn't describe the architecture, the topograhhy, and the type of businesses which are prominent in each neighborhood. You don't get a feeling for what the various neighborhoods in Oakland compared to the San Francisco article. The neighborhood designations are far too broad and not really acurrate. The "Lake Merritt" section is so underwhelminmg and leaves so much on the table. That section doesn't speak of the relation of Lake Merritt to the Lake Merritt Financial District.It desn't mention the surrounding densely populated neighborhoods like Adam's Point, Grand Lake, Gold Coast Apartment District, Cleveland Heights etc. It doesn't mention the ornate apartment houses surrounding the Lake, the numerous apartment buildings filled with young people, the recreational importance of Lake Merritt for the surrounding area and for the city in general. The section doesn't mention the restored Lake Chalet restaurant, the Gondola rides, the new Measure DD improvements which are transformational for Lake Merritt in particular and for Oakland in general. It doesn't mention the new Christ the Light Cathedral on Lake Merritt's northern edge. It doesn't even mention Childre's Fairyland on the shores of Lake Merritt. Come on guys. We can do better than this. I need your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The seperate Lake Merritt page should be included more in the general article and the Crime section should have a page of its own. We seem to have things backwards when it comes to Oakland.

There is now a separate Neighborhoods article for Oakland. Current sections do not need to be expanded, but summarized and reduced. Your suggestions sound interesting, but likely better for the individual articles (Lake Merritt also has its own article). This city article is already too long and excessively detailed in ALL its sections, and we should be looking to summarize, not expand, them.--Chimino (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be advantageous to work together peaceably. Personal attacks are never acceptable and must stop immediately. The Merritt article does need work, 98 if you would incorporate your good ideas there. I worked on 60's and 70's and it is shaping up nicely but needs work on citations. I did remove the word "brutality" 3 times. Also, someone is using the word "also" too many times LOL. So, in the words of the famous philosopher, Rodney King, Can't we all just get along?  :-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The article could be greatly improved and made much more interesting and relevant to present day Oakland if we made the crime section its own page. We could include many of the crime references which are included in the history section. This would make the History section much smaller and really about History and not so much about crime incidents. Concentrating all the crime in a "Crime page" would shorten the main article considerably and allow more space for including neighborhood information. The seperate Lake Merritt page has some exellent information which should be featured prominently. After all, Lake Merritt is Oakland's most distinct and identifiable feature. Lake Merritt is really the essence of Oakland. The Lake should be featured in an expanded neighborhood section which would also feature Chinatown (the 5th largest in the country. I think) Jack London Square, Uptown, Old Oakland, and perhaps Piedmont Ave., Rockridge, Montclair, Temescal, and Fruitvale. These neighborhoods are all very different. You have an "Alpine Village" in the Montclair District. You have "Main Street USA" in Piedmont Ave.. You have a European flavor in the Rockridge District. In Temescal it's more "Hipster" town. Chinatown and Fruitvale are strong ethnic communities which could be taken for somewhere in Asia or Latin America. Oakland has so much color and character and this Wikipedia Article is so drab and so dark. Let's lighten this sucker up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should move the Crime section and the Police Staffing section out of the main article and into a seperate "Crime Page." These sections, along with the many references to crime in the History section, are taking up way too much valuable space in the article. The neighborhood section, along with the nighlife section, business section and park section, suffer because of the huge crime content in this article. The solution is to have a seperate crime section like many other cities have.

I also don't think that "Fault Creep" as well as mentioning crime, belongs in the lead pragraphs.

There's a statement in the Geography section which is wrong and not sourced. This statement is incorrect, "About two-thirds of Oakland lies in the flat plain of the East Bay with one third rising into the foothills and hills of the East Bay range."

Anyone familiar with Oakland knows that Foothill Blvd seperates the foothills from the flats in East Oakland. This is the reason that the street is called "Foothill Blvd." Anyone looking at a map of Oakland can see that the area below Foothill up to 73rd Avenue and then Bancroft Avenue to the San Leandro border seperate Oakland's hills and foothills from the flat land. In the northern part of the city it's Telegraph, if not Shatuck, which seperate the foohills from the flat lands.

The statement in the Geography section stating that "two-thirds of Oakland lies in the flat plain" is wrong and should be corrected. I tried correcting this erroneous claim but it was swithced back even though the claim is wrong and unsourced. Can we fix this please?98.210.215.121 (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The density in the facts area is wrong. It states that Oakland's density is 5000 per square mile. Oakland's density is over 7000 per square mile. Can we fix this? In the elevation box we should include the "highest" and "lowest" point. Grizzly Peak feet would be the highest point with sea level the lowest. Can we include this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Omission--1930s

There is a glaring gap in the history section--not a single mention of anything that happened during the 1930s. We skip from 1929 until 1942. Perhaps some research needed. Apostle12 (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have some notes about the Great Depression, which hit Oakland hard but not quite as hard as some other places. Men living in Pipe City, photos by Imogen Cunningham and Dorothea Lange, stories at UC Berkeley archives and the Oakland Museum, the book Children of the Great Depression—I've been thinking for about two years that I should add information about 1930s Oakland. More appropriate to the notional history article than to the main article. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Would encourage you to add it. Assume we will be creating a separate history section soon, at which time the new information can migrate there.Apostle12 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I would also note that in history sections its not uncommon to skip over decades in order to summarize what should be a large and more detailed history article. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the Crime section not be expanded until it is a separate article. Again the facts are negative enough without adding more undue emphasis. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused

There is a paragraph in the "Crime" section that until yesterday read:

Violent crime remains a serious problem in some neighborhoods, especially those in East and West Oakland. In 2008, 33 percent of homicides occurred in patrol beats 27, 29, and 35 which include just 11% of the city's population. Homicides were disproportionately concentrated: 72% occurred in three City Council districts, District 3 in West Oakland and Districts 6 and 7 in East Oakland, even though these districts represent only 44% of Oakland's residents.

Then an anonymous editor added:

Eight of Oakland's 35 policing beats are responsible for 92% of homicides in the city.

So the final result was:

Violent crime remains a serious problem in some neighborhoods, especially those in East and West Oakland. In 2008, 33 percent of homicides occurred in patrol beats 27, 29, and 35 which include just 11% of the city's population. Homicides were disproportionately concentrated: 72% occurred in three City Council districts, District 3 in West Oakland and Districts 6 and 7 in East Oakland, even though these districts represent only 44% of Oakland's residents. Eight of Oakland's 35 policing beats are responsible for 92% of homicides in the city.

When I read this section, it actually is pretty confusing because:

The first sentence refers to "patrol beats", but doesn't say how many there are.
I don't know what a City Council district is.
The sequential reference to 11% of the city's population, then 44% of Oakland's residents is obscure.
The first sentence refers to 33% of homicides, whereas the last sentence refers to 92% of homicides.

If there are 35 policing beats and 92% of homocides occur in 8 of those beats, that means violent crime is concentrated in those beats. Yet it was this sentence, which is well-sourced and which I can understand, that was eliminated with the note that it was "overwhelmingly negative."

This section isn't terribly important to me, however I do believe it would be clearer to most readers if only the last sentence (the one now eliminated) appeared. It is concise (our goal), and it is understandable. As far as "negativity" is concerned, I don't get the distinction; the whole section is talking about homicides.Apostle12 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure voters are far more familiar with City Council districts than polices beats. You actually said this section isn't terribly important to you???? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Clear writing is always important to me. The version you insist on is a problem because it begins by discussing the number of police patrol beats, then it switches to talk about City Council Districts; the number of City Council Districts (not police patrol beats) would be an appropriate antecedent. I am a voter, and I don't know the location of my own city's City Council Districts or how many there are. Perhaps Oakland voters are more aware. In any case, the article must be clear to both Oakland voters and those who do not reside in Oakland. Please see comments below; this is getting more important to me. Apostle12 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep the well sourced SF Gate information which states "Eight of Oakland's 35 policing beats -those at the far ends of the city- are responsible for 92% of homicides in the city." We can also leave in the information regarding the the percentage of homiicides in the Council districts and take out the other references to homicide. What do you think? Is it a compromise?98.210.215.121 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Of the statistical information included, this information (which you provided) is the clearest, and I think the following sentence, or a version thereof, should be reinstated:
"Violent crime remains a serious problem in specific neighborhoods; among Oakland's 35 police patrol beats, 8 beats located in East and West Oakland are responsible for 92% of homicides in the city."
This sentence is hardly "overwhelmingly negative," as DocOfSoc seems to think. It is concise, it states how many police patrol beats there are, and it makes clear that homicides are concentrated in just 8 of those beats; by implication the other 27 beats are much safer. That is not "emphasizing the negative;" it is accurately conveying the reality of Oakland's crime pattern to the reader--which information any resident, visitor, or Oakland employee can vouch for. Apostle12 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the new lead

Great job. Congratulations to who ever was responsible for the improvements. I would only change a couple of things. In the "Oakland is known for" paragraph I would add "Its mild Mediteranean climate" and I would include something about the Port of Oakland.

Further down the intro regarding the 1906 earthquake, I would include something like "Settled in Oakland" and maybe something about Oakland experiencing a "population boom" with a possible reference to the number of residents or the % of population increase in the year following the 1906 earthquake. The "many homes were built" is a little clumsy. Anyway great job. Perhaps you could takle the "neighborhoods" the "economy" "Lake Merritt" and perhaps add a "contemporary life" section. Thanks.98.210.215.121 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do what I can (school starts in after Labor Day, then I will be a voyeur at best). I'm just trying to slowly bring the article more in-line with the Wikipedia guidelines for U.S. cities presented by epicAdam, as it should be the manual of style we all follow from here on...--Chimino (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Chimino, thanks for your hard work. It's looking much much better.98.210.215.121 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would change something about the "#1 in climate" figure. The way it is phrased right now has has absolutely zero context (what does #1 mean and how could Oakland's climate be radically different from other Bay-area communities?) In addition, when you look at the source provided, the ranking doesn't come from data gathered by NOAA but rather by data gathered from NOAA by something called the "Places Rated Almanac". That makes a world of difference since NOAA doesn't actively "rank" localities in this way. There are much better sources that can objectively describe Oakland's climate. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find something better, Adam. Do the final factoids in the final paragraph read okay? I'm trying to avoid any more travel-guide-like language.--Chimino (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the "#1 in climate" figure needs context and better sourcing. I might offer one point of clarification, however--the climate does differ radically from one Bay Area community to another even though they are separated by as little as three or four miles. Having spent five years in the Midwest, I realize this may surprise folks from other regions; radically different microclimates may be unique to the Bay Area given our hilly topography, wind and fog patterns, proximity to San Francisco Bay and/or the ocean, and other factors. Apostle12 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The microclimate information would be great info to include with reliable sourcing. As with almost everything in an encyclopedia, it's often best to let facts speak for themselves. Instead of "Oakland has the best climate", which is an editorial opinion, it would be preferable to say, "Oakland has a Mediterranean climate characterized by year-round warm temperatures of ?-degrees and ? days of sunshine." Give people the information and let them draw their own conclusions. Best, epicAdam(talk) 23:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Also I'm removing crime from the lead for a final time. NO other major city article lists crime in its article lead...not Detroit, nor Baltimore, Johannesburg, Kingston, etc. Therefore its inclusion is entirely POV. Also, for balance, the "renaissance" line will eventually have to go as well.--Chimino (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that you are correct regarding current practice, however I don't understand why this is so. What crime statistics indicate about the relative safety of a city is at least as important as other information that routinely appears in the lede--date of incorporation, for example. I think this should change. Apostle12 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, just discovered that the Wikipedia article covering nearby Richmond, California does mention crime. "The city has a reputation for being crime-plagued, although this problem is centralized in the urban core, with many parts of Richmond having a low crime rate. But the city's own police department has described the city as having a chronic violent crime problem for "decades" and in 2010 was ranked as the 6th most dangerous city in the United States."
I think saying something positive in the "Oakland" lede about the city's recent success in curbing violent crime would be appropriate, especially since Oakland has a national (even international) reputation for high rates of violent crime.Apostle12 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to leave crime out of the lead entirely, as the lead for a city or geographic area generally summarizes what differentiates the city/area from others like it. In this case, crime, like infrastructure, is something inherent with all cities, no matter the level. My point was even in the major cities with heavy crime rates, their lead sticks with a brief on geography, history, climate, attractions and other notability. Mentioning crime in the lead would make it one of Oakland's defining characteristics, for which I disagree...
Anyway, I'll go with consensus of the other editors, so perhaps Blik, Doc, Adam, 92, etc could weigh in...--Chimino (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I will also go with consensus, of course. Just to be clear, I would love it if the last paragraph could read:
Oakland has experienced its own "renaissance" during recent years with the opening of theaters and art galleries, trendy shops, modern downtown condos, pubs, and restaurants with top chefs.[1] Some progress has been made reducing the city's high crime rate; violent crime is primarily concentrated in certain neighborhoods, although property crime remains problematic throughout the city.[2] Oakland has a Mediterranean climate, and in 2011 Oakland was ranked the 10th most walkable city in the country.[3] Oakland tops the list of the 50 largest US cities using electricity from renewable sources.[4]
To me this seems balanced, and everything is well-sourced; a good way to conclude the lede.Apostle12 (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oakland's claim as being #1 in climate should stay since it is such a high ranking. If Oakland were rated #3, #4, or even #2 I'd agree. But number one means that no other city has a better climate and this fact should be included. The Bay Area has micro climates therefore Oakland's ranking is well deserved. It could be 90* in Concord while being 70* in Oakland, 62 and foggy in SF, while Pacifica has 58*.

Also, do SF or any other cities have promotional phrases in the introductory paragraphs? If they do, the refference to Oakland's recent changes should stand.98.210.215.121 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a high ranking but that doesn't mean it should stand without context and without a reliable source. The chamber of commerce citation is inadequate because it references yet another source, both of which are dubious. And no, other city articles should not have "promotional phrases" in the lead. As has been said before, this is an encyclopedia article and not a travel guide. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"There is no there there"

I think this is a cute section, and the quote is well-known by Oaklanders, but the section sticks out like a sore thumb. Even though I wrote the first paragraph for it, I don't think it's really appropriate for a main article and should go. Thoughts?--Chimino (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's significant but agree it needs a home. Really, it should be part of a new "Culture" section that would include the information currently found in: Arts, Nightlife, Sports, Cultural Events, and Attractions. Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it should stay. Culture section might work. Apostle12 (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the part of the lead above, works for me. The "There There" does need a home and it is part of Oakland's culture. So far so good. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while reorganizing the rest of the article along the WP Cities Guideline, they mention the possibility of "Other Topics", and use the example of Louisville and its common mispronunciations, which seems similar to the Stein topic. Perhaps it should remain as-is? I'm not sure it fits in with the other Culture topics, such as annual events, attractions and nightlife.--Chimino (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

works for me ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That may work but having an "other" section is not ideal. I would say that Louisville decided to make an exception, and a poor one at that. Most other articles include information on accents in their demographics (Boston) or culture (New York City, Baltimore) sections. Having the information sit out on its own is essentially the same as it is now! Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Schools/Universities Section

The school and universities section says that part of the University of California, Berkeley campus falls into Oakland city limits. I did not know this. Is this true? I thought the UC Berkeley campus was roughly in the middle of the city of Berkeley between South and North Berkeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.30.7 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that is incorrect and I will remove it. As the article states, UCB retains offices in Oakland, but the campus is the east-central part of Berkeley.--Chimino (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied with the references given after undoing my removal. The sources state UC owns land in Oakland, but does not state it as campus land, or that it is part of UC Berkeley.--Chimino (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Chimino. Universities, and land-grant colleges in particular, often own lots of property near campus but that doesn't mean it's part of the school. I think it's a bit of a stretch to have UC Berkeley listed here without a clear indication that the school has an active presence in Oakland. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Part of the UC Berkeley campus is withinb Oakland city limits. The Clark Keer Campus is within Oakland city limits . Oakland city limits extend all the way to Panoramic way which is directly adjacent to Memorial Stadium. Oakland City limits also extend to Grizzly Peak just above Lawrence Laboratory.

Update

The article is coming along nicely; I reorganized the sections per the WP Cities Guideline, rewrote some sections to summarize excessive detail, and remove a majority of the original research and travel-guide language which had been written into the article. I've also added pertinent information to the lead while moving fact-oriented (and any other) material requiring a citation to the body of the article.

The two sections I did not touch were History and Crime. As we've all agreed, they require seperate articles if they are to remain intact, and hopefully the other editors will move them soon. The Crime section should be no more than 2-3 brief paragraphs, and as Adam stated above, the History section should be no more than one or two paragraphs for each decade. Other, more detailed information can be linked to the main articles of the subject.--Chimino (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet

Please verify this: "In 1916, General Motors opened a major Chevrolet automobile factory in East Oakland..." As Wiki concider General Motors aquired Chevrolet in 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.23.210 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. There are several references to the Chevrolet plant being opened that year (such as here) but none naming GM.--Chimino (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe that crime is once again in the lead.

Detroit, Saint Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Miami and every large city in the United States has no mention of crime in the lead except for Oakland. What in the World is going on here? What are you people thinking? It looks like the same people who turned this article into a dark crime blotter are at it again. Unfortunately they win, their agendas win, and Oakland loses. What a shame. I'm done with this. It's hopeless.98.210.215.121 (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How do we justify crime in the lead when no othe major city includes crime in the lead? We take out the climate ranking, the business ranking, the walkabiltiy ranking and we insert crime back in the lead? This is completely bush league. It looks like the editors who want to define Oakland for its crime have won once again. What a shame that Oakland's wikipedia article has been highjacked by editors with agendas. This is a complete farce.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also prefer to not have crime mentioned in the lead, but the other editors disagreed. I took out the "rankings" and moved them down further in the article replacing them with (better) prose. Climate, business, and popular tourist attractions remain, but in a way which doesn't come off like the Oakland Chamber of Commerce "selling" the reader on the city, which is truly "bush league".--Chimino (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This Oakland article has four times the crime content of the Ciudad Juarez, Mexico page.

Oakland has more crime content in its lead than Ciudad Juarez Mexico. This is rediculous and you all should be ashamed for listening to the editors which turned this Oakland article into a crime blotter in the first place. Why do you continue to listen to these individuals who obviuosly have agendas against Oakland? Crime has no business being in the lead for Oakland. This is outrageous.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What does Ciudad Juarez have to do with Oakland?
The point of spotlighting the reality of Oakland's decades-long crime problem is make the Wikipedia article accurate, which might just inspire positive change. After decades of high crime rates, New York City chose to face its seemingly intractable crime problem head-on when Mayor Giuliani made it clear to criminals that they were not welcome in the city. Result: Crime plummeted, and NYC is now one of the safest cities in the nation. Any "agenda" there might be is FOR Oakland, not against it! IMHO the shame belongs to those who perpetrate crime in Oakland, to those who condone it, and to those who want to sweep the problem under the rug.
Violent crime is beginning to wane in Oakland, and the lead makes note of this positive trend.
P.S. Might be nice if you started signing your posts. Apostle12 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to compare this city article with other city articles, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's a losing argument. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. This Oakland article is being held hostage by two editors with agendas. I'm pretty sure Apostle doesn't know much about Oakland. Apostle when was the last time you walked around Lake Merritt, had dinner at an Oakland restaurant, saw a show at the Paramount, Fox, Grand Lake, Woodminister, took a gondola on Lake Merritt, went to the Oakland Museum, the Oakland Zoo, strolled Piedmont Ave., College Ave, Temescal, Uptown, Chinatown, Jack London Square, had dinner at Comiss, Flora, Oliveto's, Lake Chalet, Ozumo's, Pican's, Sidebar, or enven a sunday at Fenton's or a deep dish at Zachary's. What qualifies you to define Oakland with crime when no other city has crime in their lead? As far as Binksternet, I don't believe he even lives in Oakland. I suspect he inserted the "Fault creep" and "The Hayward fault runs through Oakland" in the previous lead.````Binksternet doesn't want anyone to go look at how the San Francisco article which h'es very interested in looks. Binksternet is their crime in the lead in the SF article? Why don't you and Apostle go put some in to better the city?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I must remind you to assume good faith. The lead, as it is written now, is certainly well composed. The crime mention is limited to one sentence, which of itself is very concise. If you truly believe this article is being held hostage I advice you to request outside input. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ocean Beach. I realize that it's only one sentence but crime still shouldn't be in the lead. No other major city in the United States has crime in its lead and Oakland shoudn't either. It doesn't belong there and it's not even accurate. Crime in Oakland is up 6% so far t5his year.
...Said the IP address from Concord, CA.
I rode a gondola on Lake Merritt to celebrate my engagement. I have eaten at the Lake Chalet five times, Fenton's four times, Pican once, Oliveto's once, Zachary's twice. You forgot Bay Wolf, Cato's Ale House, Ben & Nick's, the Claremont Hotel, Vo's, Le Cheval, Drunken Fish... I loved Temescal street fair last month, took my grandkids to the Oakland Zoo and Joaquin Miller Park when they visited, I mixed sound for a music festival at Woodminster Amphitheatre, bought my car on Broadway Auto Row, and I often go to the farmer's market at Jack London Square. I lived just off of Piedmont Avenue for twelve years, then I moved to the Grand Avenue and Lake Shore Avenue area. I have mixed sound at the Paramount, taken in a show at the Fox, volunteered for Oakland Heritage Alliance events, mixed sound at the Lake Merritt Dance Center, the Oakland Marriott, the Oakland Convention Center, the Calvin Simmons Theater and the Oakland Scottish Rite Center, and I have added several Oakland articles to Wikipedia, including Oakland Hills and J. Mora Moss House. I wrote about an Oakland architect, Clarence W. W. Mayhew, the Oakland publisher Joe Knowland, and the Oakland loudspeaker engineer Ed Long (audio engineer). I made sure that the articles about Rocky road (ice cream) and Mai Tai flew their Oakland flags. I greatly expanded and improved the articles about Ina Coolbrith and Timothy L. Pflueger who were both active in Oakland
So, don't try to out-Oakland me, writing as you are from Concord while I'm enjoying the sunset on Lake Merritt... Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, since you're enjoying the sunset at Lake Merritt you can probably look over to the south side of the Lake and see the transformational construction project taking shape. Have you writen anything about that yet? Also, I read your "Oakland Hills" article. I've never heard of an Oakland neighborhood called "Oakland Hills." There are many neighborhoods in the hills of Oakland like Panoramic Hill, Pop: 429, Claremont, Pop: 2,348, Hiller Highlands, Pop: 739, Merriewood Pop: 3,266, Glen Highlands, Pop: 1,770, Montclair, Pop: 4,214, Forest Land, Pop 1,691, Sheper Canyon, Pop: 1,804, Piedmont Pines, Pop: 3,135, etc. I also don't like "Oakland Hills" capitalized like it's suppose to be a seperate city like Anaheim Hills.98.210.215.121 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Apostle stated he will transfer the current Crime content into a new, separate article, and I will take him at his word. Wow, not even a note on the other new additions I made to the lead (all positive in regards to the city), or all the other sections I rewrote and shortened.--Chimino (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I commend your good work Chimino. Do plan to transfer the Crime content--lots of travel last week and this, next week should be more free. Apostle12 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Great work Chimino. I would make a small change regarding the time after the 1906 earthquake. Instead of "many homes were built." I would write "after the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake, many San Franciscans found refuge in Oakland. (Number of former SF residents) San Franciscans settled in Oakland as the city's population grew by --% in the years following the 1906 earthquake. Another thing. Oakland's density per square mile is listed as 5,000 when the correct figure is over 7,000 residents per square mile.

As far as Apostle being in charge of the crime section, well, that's like having the fox guarding the hen house. I suspect that Oakland's crime content will go from four times that of Ciudad Jaurez, which is the most violent and dangerous city in the World, to probably 8 times the crime content of Juarez.98.210.215.121 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your insults are not appreciated sir. The only change I might suggest would be to review previous eras, along the lines of the Crime in Chicago and Crime in New York City articles. Apostle12 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
To the IP address editor from, where was it, Concord purportedly? ...In regards to comparing the Oakland article to the Juarez one...don't fall into that trap of thinking; If you feel that the Juarez article has insufficient treatment of it's own crime problems, remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative resource so feel free to add those details at the Juarez article as you see appropriate. Of course, keep in mind that, in whatever article on a Juarez neighborhood district you choose to edit, particularly if you are talking about adding violent crime topics, you might possibly encounter resistance from proud Juarez residents or others with cultural and/or economic development connections to Juarez that make a hobby of, or even a living from, celebrating and promoting Juarez and it's current offerings. These "boosters," whether they are Juarez "natives," performance artists, business owners, property owners or developers, could take offense to anyone noting deleterious (but nonetheless encyclopedic) facts that tarnish the repute of their cherished city. Many have a vested interest in not having anything published that might chase away certain types of consumer spending and private capital investment in land and buildings there. Despite those who you feel "obviuosly(sic) have agendas against Oakland," remember that that there are others who may have vested interests in favor of Oakland, and therefore their own types of systemic bias. CriticalChris 06:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Crime forked

I took the liberty of forking the crime section as it seemed other users didn't have the time to fork it. Feel free to re-add pertinent information or details that should be present in this article though keep in mind the bulk of such information should be added to the Crime in Oakland, California article. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 08; I think it reads fine as-is, with the most current data available listed.--Chimino (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I have been short on time and it looks great. Made one small tweak. As time allows, it would be good to add data from 1900 to 1960. The Chicago and New York City crime articles cover past eras, and I believe doing so might provide valuable perspective.Apostle12 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
TY 08Ocean for moving the crime article, good work! Also, Cimino, your edits are up to your high standard, ty! To whom it may concern: Nobody is holding this article hostage, we have a good team here although we may occasionally disagree. I am keeping a close eye on the article which has evolved nicely. I have had a deathin the family so not much time to do other than watch. Good work guys! Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Someone said "We take out the climate ranking, the business ranking, the walkabiltiy ranking" I really liked those in the lead, thoughts about putting them back? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I moved the "factoids" down to the body of the article, keeping the lead a summary of the main content, instead mentioning climate and business in a different fashion. Instead of "walkability" I mentioned the Lake and JLS. BTW, the Forbes business ranking for Oakland in 2011 was around #120, hardly notable. The cherry-picked #1 figure was from 2001.--Chimino (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
How come it's OK to "Cherry pick" figures on crime from many years ago put placing a perfectly referenced mention of Oakland's #8 business ranking less than a decade back is taken out? The information about Oakland's business was by Milken Institute/Forbes Magazine. I don't understand why you took that out. Taking out the cimate ranking and the walkability ranking is taking out what makes Oakland different from many other American cities. Hiding Oakland's good qualities and replacing them with crime in the lead is unfair.98.210.215.121 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
If anything, the second paragraph (history) in the lead could be pared down, and some of the content in general moved around (many cities articles mention a city's notable features in the second paragraph, etc).--Chimino (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Main photo

There seems to be a bit of edit-warring over the main photo, and I thought it would be best solved with a vote here. BDS2006 changed the main pic with one of his or her own, and Binksternet changed it back, with BDS reversing the change.

Original photo:

New photo:

I actually like the new photo, as it is more comprehensive, and the photo we've had too closely resembles a Lake Merritt photo further down the article. However, the charm of LM is also a main feature of the city which is not present in the BDS photo.

Thoughts?--Chimino (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

While it might be more "comprehensive," I don't think the new photo is well-composed. It just doesn't strike me as good photography. The original photo is a fine photograph, however, as noted, it IS almost exactly the same as the Lake Merritt photo. Unfortunately Oakland doesn't have anything (like the Golden Gate Bridge or the TransAmerica pyramid) that is emblematic of the city. Not sure what should happen, however I don't think the new photo is it. Apostle12 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The original photo is much better. The new photo looks industrial and is shot from a west bay and San Francisco perpective. Oakland looks it's best while viewed from Oakland not from San Francisco. The best views of Oakland are looking back at the city from the 12th Street side of Lake Meritt. The gleaming Lake in the forefront with the green hills of Oakland cascading down to the Lake can't be beat. I also some of the photo's in the Lake Merrit article with the ornate art deco highrises are extremely beautiful and shpould be considered in the main photo. In the future the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge with downtown Oakland in the background may make a good main photograph. Also, photographs from Grizzly Peak looking down at downtown Oakland and the Bay are spectacular. As I said, unlike San Francisco where that city looks best from a distance, Oakland looks it's best while photographed from Oakland.98.210.215.121 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the original image, though I was the one to change it to that image. It is composed better and has a better quality than the new photo. 08OceanBeachS.D. 06:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Of these two photos, I prefer the top one. The Port of Oakland (a separate article) is between the viewer and Oakland in the bottom photo. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Oakland article now features not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 photos taken at the shore of Lake Merritt in which the lake dominates the view. The lake appears in two other images as well, albeit in a less prominent fashion. I must admit Lake Merritt is indeed one of the most beautiful features in Oakland, but I cannot say it represents or defines Oakland as city of 390,000 that, with its massive port, serves as an important node of international trade on the Pacific Coast of North America. To turn Lake Merritt into the defining feature of this diverse, dynamic, and global city is ludicrous. The port may not be beautiful (although it is certainly impressive and distinct), much like the MacArthur Maze is not known for its beauty, but the vast majority of people who live and work in and around Oakland see the port and travel the maze almost every day and these features of Oakland are not shameful at all as they are symbolic of the economic significance of Oakland as one of the major centers of transportation and trade in the United States. I vote for the new image until a better one can be found. Lake Merritt has its own article if people want to see pictures of the water fountain. Thank you for sharing your opinions and including mine. May accuracy be the goal of every Wikipedia article. --BDS2006 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the port is something to be ashamed of, it's that the photo itself is not a very good one. The one taken on the shore of Lake Merritt is of a much better quality. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is another example, while still inclusive of the Lake, differing composition from the three currently in the article: --Chimino (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty good photo, though I think the current one is better composed and more beautiful. BDS has a point that Lake Merritt is overrepresented. Collage Idea: One photo with a dramatic close-up of one of the huge cranes at the port; one photo showing the Tribune Tower; one photo showing the nightime entrance to Yoshi's; one photo showing the Mormon tabernacle; one photo showing a stately Claremont District home; one photo showing a small, charming Oakland bungalow; and so on. I could volunteer to take some photos, Binksternet and other local people might provide others--could work! Apostle12 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Bodies of water are useful in photos because they focus attention on the horizon, allowing for a group of distant buildings to be featured. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How about photos showing Oakland's interesting neighborhood shopping strips. For Example a shot of Piedmont Ave near the Piedmont theater. A shot of College Ave near Market Hall. A shot of Montclair Village with the tall pines across hoighway 13. A photo of Lakeshore and Grand with the Grand Lake Theater in the foreground. I like the idea of a photo of the Mormon Temple with the fountains and even perhaps while dressed up for the Holidays. Let's not forgett that some of the best shots of downtown Oakland and Lake Merritt are taken from Skyline and Grizzly Peak. Another cool shot of Oakland is between the redwood trees at the top of the Cleveland Cascade steps.98.210.215.121 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I like the collage idea that Apostle proposed as it would enable a more complete representation of the city. 98.210 seems to have some good ideas for getting a proper skyline shot. Good luck!--BDS2006 (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Oakland

Should be a new paragraph describing current events regarding Occupy Oakland and police response soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.130.103 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to wait we see how it looks in the long term. Maybe a line linking to Occupy Oakland at this point, otherwise it would be a bit of Wikipedia:Recentism. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There is an Occupy Oakland page already, so i agree with optigan13 that we should wait till it conlcudes to add it to this article.Millertime246 (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree that, with all of the "occupy Oakland" events that have transpired, these protest movements, and the governmental and police response, are historically significant, and therefore merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article on Oakland? The question then becomes not whether to add it to this main "Oakland" article, but rather, what details to include or exclude, no? CriticalChris 02:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The Occupy Oakland events are big in terms of media coverage. They have sometimes eclipsed Occupy Wall Street. They are notable, and I think they will not diminish so much with time that they become just a bump in Oakland's history. I think a brief summary of the events should be in this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I think a brief mention might be appropriate now, something linking the "Occupy" protest to Oakland's long history of political activism--the general strike of 1946, the 1966-7 marches on the Oakland Army induction center and so on. Probably the event has already achieved sufficient critical mass to be considered significant, however how it will unfold is anyone's guess--especially under the quixotic leadership of Mayor Jean Quan. Since Oakland is not a main financial center, it is hard to imagine "Occupy Oakland" becoming more than a footnote--if the movement continues (especially if it actually achieves anything), London, New York, Brussels and Zurich would have to become the main stages of political theater. Apostle12 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Image, redux

I reverted the switched main image to what was previously "voted" on above. the replacement image was not as high quality technically, but is a good image for the government section (maybe having 2 of city hall next to each other is excessive, but i dont think so). I dont think that the main image should be switched from a skyline shot (common for city articles) without discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Illegal immigration

It seems one or two people have a problem with the term "illegal immigrants" under the Shifting of Cultures section. Since there is disagreement over the term, it should be discussed here before any change is made.--Chimino (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is telling that the linked article is called "Illegal immigration." "Illegal immigrant" is the proper legal term, and it applies to all those who are in the United States in violation of our immigration laws--either by crossing our borders illegally or by overstaying tourist visas or work visas in violation of the laws governing those visas.

The term "undocumented immigrant" would refer to an immigrant who is here legally, however through some oversight the immigrant does not carry the proper documents to prove his or her legal status--documents lost, stolen, or held up in bureaucratic procedure--"undocumented" connotes a technical matter, not a legal one. The use of this term to refer to immigrants who do not enjoy legal status is an attempt to artificially, and falsely, confer quasi-legal status. The use of "undocumented" rather than "illegal" when referring to immigrants who are here illegally detracts from Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy.

This is similar to Wikipedia's prohibition against the use of euphemism--for example "passed away" instead of "died." The Society for Professional Journalists favors political correctness; in an encyclopedia, accuracy must trump political correctness. Apostle12 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Firestorm

Peshtigo Fire killed 1500, burned 1800 sq miles. Oakland is not worst firestorm in American history.Tapered (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the claim; it should only be reinstated with citation, and with the clarification/context of what made it the "worst".--Chimino (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Not "the worst firestorm in American history." It was "the worst urban firestorm in American history," as per source. Greatest financial loss, greatest loss of life. Apostle12 (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
  1. ^ Lechowitzky, Irene (March 20, 2011). "The Oakland renaissance". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2011-08-08.
  2. ^ Hill, Angela (Oct 1, 2009). "Crime in Oakland: Perception, reality or both?". Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 2011-08-08.
  3. ^ Said, Carolyn (July 20, 2011). "S.F., Oakland in top 10 most walkable U.S. cities". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2011-08-08.
  4. ^ *Top Ten US Cities for Renewable Energy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oakland,_California/Archive_5&oldid=1137053335"