Talk:Oakland, California/Archive 4

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oakland, California → Oakland – Oakland is by far the largest city and WP:Primary Topic; Oakland already redirects here. Though naming conventions for cities in the United States suggest otherwise, it is unnecessary to have the disambiguation due to it being the primary topic. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 04:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I live in Oakland so I should have a strong opinion about this but I do not. Either way this ends up, readers are not having too much difficulty finding the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This move discussion is, in part, in response to the aftermath of a cut and paste move that was recently made, and then subsequently reverted by yours truly. The so-called "AP Stylebook rule" of WP:PLACE#United States that applies in this case is a controversial and heavily debated compromise. Under this rule, because Oakland is not on the AP's list of not requiring the state modifier, so too must the Wikipedia article title not omit it either. And just because Oakland redirects here, that is usually not a good reason why, under the rule, that we should move it over the redirect. The most recent debate on this rule was an RFC earlier this year (see archived discussion) that ended with a consensus to keep the status quo and maintain that guideline. And yes, one of that RFC's rejected proposals, just like this move discussion, was to remove state modifiers from the titles for all primary topics across the board. Because of that recent RFC, I cannot recommend a page move, and remove the state modifier from the page title, at this time. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion was started because of the incorrect form of moving the article that lost the articles history. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Zzyzx11's comment above. —  AjaxSmack  16:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; the "AP Stylebook rule" is a workable and longstanding compromise, and now is not the time to begin dismantling it. Powers ^T 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, let's stick with the naming convention.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Crime section

Has been pared down significantly, and fits much better within the scope of the article. Most of the statistical overkill has been removed, and paragraphs merged to allow a much better flow to the section. For future reference, view articles on cities such as Detroit and Baltimore, also struggling with high crime rates, but not weighing down their articles with their Crime sections. Overall points can be made without listing year-to-year statistical data, for example, or creating a new paragraph for each individual crime.--Chimino (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with many of your revisions, however I have reinstated some of the deleted material. In particular, it is important to note that violent crime tends to occur in specific Oakland neighborhoods, whereas property crime is widespread throughout the city. As revised this becomes quite clear.

The section that deals with the racial/gender makeup of victims and suspects is also quite important, since it supports what otherwise might seem unsubstantiated opinion appearing in the previous paragraph.

Previous discussion, among many editors, led to the decision to have the "Crime" section appear separately, rather than being part of demographics. Since some mention of race is unavoidable when discussing crime in Oakland, the move out of demographics was a calculated decision meant to de-emphasize race; the consensus was that we should not imply that demographics and race are necessarily linked, especially since in some cities they are not. Apostle12 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the argument (and wouldn't be so arrogant as to put my opinion over general consensus), but featured articles on U.S. cities, such as Detroit and the recent Providence, Rhode Island, have their Crime sections under demographics. Shouldn't we be using FA's as the template which each article under its subject should attain?

Of course, the Oakland article is also unique in its mention of race in relation to crime. I'd be in favor of scrapping the racial argument in the Crime section altogether. Within general consensus, of course.--Chimino (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding where the "Crime" section appears in Wikipedia articles, there seems to be no template. Some city articles (San Francisco, for example) have no "Crime" section. In the Baltimore article (and as you noted in the Providence, Rhode Island article) "Crime" appears under "Demographics." The "Crime" sections for Detroit, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Jose are minimal, and they appear under "Law and government," a section Oakland lacks, the closest being "Government and Politics." The "Crime" section in the New York City article is lengthly and quite separate. I think we can put the "Crime" section wherever seems most desirable--we could, for example, include it it an expanded "Government and Politics" section, renaming the section "Law and government." At present we are in line with the New York City article in that the Oakland "Crime" section is lengthly and separate.

Some years back, New York City made a conscious choice to focus specifically on crime with the intent of making it a safer city; they succeeded, and New York's crime statistics are now remarkably good. Other cities (Dallas for example) have very high crime rates, yet they tend to want to sweep the problem under the rug and have experienced little improvement over the years. The general consensus has been that Oakland will benefit by facing the problem head-on, much as did New York City.

During previous discussions, the racial aspect was noted as a bit of a "hot potato," so inclusion of statistics was deemed important to enhance objectivity. Because there are racial correlations (not causations), I don't think the topic should be scrapped altogether, though references to racial correlations must be scrupulously sourced and vetted to avoid demonizing any particular group. Racial politics have been very much a part of Oakland's history, beginning with the rise of the Black Panthers during the 1960s, so it's not surpising that the Oakland article should be unique in mentioning race.Apostle12 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, good points. I think anyone who has lived in Oakland will agree race has always played a role in the city's identity, for better or worse. I'm fine with the Crime section as-is; my main intention was to remove the year-by-year stat listings (most of which differed little from each other) and basically bring the section more in-line lengthwise with the rest of the article.--Chimino (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Right...good improvements. Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

# of artists per capita

Oakland has the highest concentration of artists per capita in the United States."The Official Travel and Tourism Website of the United States". Retrieved 11 June 2011.

• I don't think this is a reliable source - this is just a promotional entry. What's the source of this statistic, and how did they arrive at the result? (47.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think this statistic, or one of the many similar ones out there, should be used. It is fact that Oakland has a uniquely strong artist community. That fact should be reflected in the article.
• Even if the entry is from a tourism website, the website is a national website, which means that this superlative statement can only apply to one city in America. In other words, the website cannot say that every city has the highest concentration of artists, so their is no reason to doubt that the statement is biased due to the tourism-oriented nature of the source. Tamalpais (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is still a fear generating article

I agree that this is a fear-biased article, highlighting crime in the introduction to the city. Other cities with higher crime rates, St Louis, e.g., do not mention crime in their introduction. Further, San Francisco, which was demolished in the 1906 earthquake has no mention of earthquakes in its introduction; whereas, Oakland, which survived the 1906 incomparably better, has it in the introduction. What is the need to put a negative statement about earthquakes in Oakland's introduction, when the phenomenon is general to other cities in the bay area, and Oakland survived relatively better than SF in the most disastrous earthquake of 1906?Tamalpais (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This article starts off by inducing fear regarding natural disasters. The article mentions ruptures in the San Andreas fault in 1906 along with "fault creep" on the Hayward fault. It's interesting that San Francisco which is the city that was destroyed by the 1906 earthquake has very little fear generating content regarding natural disasters.

Also, the crime section, while now smaller, is still filled with opinionated fear generating content such as the statement "Oaklanders fear their own city." This is opinion and conjecture and is not fact based. Also, the comments regarding Oakland being a "dangerous city" are written as fact and as something permanent rather then something which changes with time, based on the current crime stats.

Clearly the Oakland article on Wikipedia is used as a format for certain editors who contribute to both Oakland and SF articles to inject their own biases at Oakland's expense. Wikipedia should be a non biased medium used to inform readers with facts regarding individual cities. Clearly Wikipedia is being used to prop up cities like San Francisco while frightening readers with fears about natural disasters and crime regarding Oakland.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to crime, I assume you are referring to this sentence: "Today crime remains one of Oakland's most serious challenges, and Oakland continues to have a reputation among its own citizens, its police force, and residents of other Bay Area cities as a dangerous place, with one of the top five highest rates of violent crime in the US."

Please note that this sentence if very well sourced. Also, it refers to the present and does not imply that this perception is permanent. When the reality changes, the perception will change--and so will this article. So far, that has not occurred.

I cannot imagine readers being frightened by the brief mention of the Hayward fault and its relationship to the San Andreas fault. There is nothing "fear generating" in this. Just reviewed the San Francisco article, which is much more "fear inducing" when it describes the damage San Francisco has suffered due to earthquake activity along the San Andreas and Hayward faults. Apostle12 (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oakland article does not capture essence of the city.

The Oakland article is poorly written and relies on stereotypes and preconceptions. The article is written from a negative point of view. The article is written from a San Francisco centric viewpoint. The emphasis is always on crime and natural disasters. Obviously the editors aren't familiar with the complexities of the city. The burgeoning dinning scene gets barely a mention. The fact that large parts of the city like Montclair, Rockridge, Temescal, Piedmont Avenue, Lakeshore, Grand Ave., Crocker Highlands, Glenview, Oakmore, Redwood Heights, Dimond, Ridgemont, Oak Knoll, Shefield Village, Uptown, Lake Merritt, Old Oakland, Jack London Square, Chinatown and many other neighborhoods have very few violent crimes. The previous police chief stated that over 50% of Oakland's homicides occur in 5 of the 35 police beats.

Oakland should be defined by the fact that it was rated by Rand McNally as having the best climate in the nation. Why is this fact not included? Oakland should be defined as being the #10 most walkable city in the Nation. Why is this fact not included? Oakland should be defined as having a burgeoning dinning and arts scene. Why is this fact relegated to a few sentences? Oakland should be defined by its vibrant commercial and dinning neighborhood districts. Oakland should be defined by its tremendous views and topography which are on par with Marin County. Oakland should be defined by its greenbelt of hillside parks which feature Sibley, Huckelberry, Redwood, and Chabot. Oakland should be defined by its glorious downtown Lake Merritt and by its wonderful theaters in the Fox, Paramount, and Grand Lake. Oakland should be defined by its wonderful Oakland Museum, magnificent and expanding Oakland Zoo, and its state-of-the-art Chabot Space and Science Center. Oakland should be defined by its religious architecture with the magnificent Mormon Temple, Christ the Light Cathedral, and Greek Orthodox Church.

In many ways Oakland actually surpasses San Francisco. Oakland's theaters, religious architecture surpass SF's theaters and religious architecture. Oakland features a superior Zoo, an Oracle Arena which SF has nothing to compare with, the fourth largest container sea port in the United States and a convenient international airport which unlike the Milbrae Airport in "San Francisco" is actually within Oakland city limits.

Yet despite all of these advantages, Oakland is stuck with a depressing Wikipedia article written by individuals with an agenda in making sure Oakland is seen as a violent and scary place. In short, this Oakland article is not representative of Oakland as a city and is nothing more than a depressing fear mongering crime blotter. Meanwhile, the SF article reads like a travel guide written by the SF Convention and Visitors Bureau. It's time Oakland stand up for itself and stop allowing editors with ulterior motives to define the city. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption that editors have some kind of agenda is incorrect. It is true that Oakland offers a lot; please feel free to offer well-sourced additions that highlight these assets.

The unfortunate fact, however, is that many Oakland neighborhoods are far from safe. At any given time, approximately 10,000 convicted felons who have been released on parole reside within the city, and many have not mended their ways. Armed robbery and car jackings occur in every neighborhood; several months ago, two acquaintances were held up at gunpoint on the shores of Lake Merritt. The incident convinced them to move to a safer city.

Then there is the racial tension. A friend of mine was minding his own business walking down the street near Jack London Square with his girlfriend when he was hit over the head with a baseball bat in a completely unprovoked incident--the assailant was black and he is white, and racial slurs were involved. He ended up in a coma for three days. Add to this drive-by shootings and gang-associated violence, and I would be very hesitant indeed to suggest a casual walk through Oakland to the uninitiated visitor.

I believe the article as written covers this territory in a fair manner. If Oakland wants to be known for its finer things, the city's residents need to clean up their act. San Jose did it. New York did it. Oakland can too. Apostle12 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a native Oaklander, and have put work into the article (mainly on clean-up and copy-edit), and find it a fair assessment of the city. It's not meant to read like a travel guide, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Its purpose is to list each city's history, influence, and raw data. The crime section is larger than many city's pages (ask Apostle, it was FAR larger before I skimmed it down), but it does not have undue weight in relation to the rest of the article.

The fact remains, Oakland is regularly listed by national organizations as one of the five or ten most dangerous cities in the United States. I find it funny those who complain on this forum about the crime section of the article always compare it to San Francisco, which speaks to the continual inferiority complex Oaklanders have with SF. The article should be compared to that of all major US cities, not SF only, and by that criteria it fits well (though I personally feel it is too long and its sections, not only Crime, more concise).

Again, the article paints neither a positive or negative light on the city. If you focus on one section of the article, as many have, ignoring all others, that is your personal choice of perception.--Chimino (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have lived in Oakland for 23 of the last 28 years (short residencies in San Francisco, Berkeley and Albany) and I have worked on both the Oakland article and the San Francisco article. They are two different beasts, written by separate groups of editors. I think this Oakland article is okay regarding faultlines and crime; it reflects the sources and paints a neutral picture rather than an overly promotional one, hiding the bad parts. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oakland's problems are not unique

Mr. Binksternet and other SF editors who also contribute to this Oakland article need to understand that robberies and other crimes also occur in every San Francisco neighborhood but you refuse to include this in any of your San Francisco contributions. The San Francisco Examiner has its "Law and Disorder" blog which highlights crime in San Francisco. A 70 year old woman was recently pistol whipped in SF. Crimes occurr in Noe Valley and other so called "safe" SF neighborhoods. San Francisco's downtown is crime ridden with rampant crime in the Tenderloin, Mid Market, 6th Street, Soma, and Civic Center. San Francisco's eatern half is also crime ridden with crimes in the Mission, Portrero Hill, Bayview, Hunters Point, Visitation Valley, Excelsior etc. Recently three women have been hit by random gunfire. One woman was hit by a stray bullet two days ago. Another woman was hit by random gunfire as she stood outside a San Francisco house party. Also an 11 year old girl was hit by a stray bullet that went through the window of her home. Alex Trabeck was robbed in his San Francisco hotel. A German tourist was killed last year by a stray bullet near Union Square. http://www.sfexaminer.com/taxonomy/term/6604

Also, I'll take issue with the writter who attempts to portray walking in Oakland as dangerous. I walk Piedmont Ave., Lakeshore, Rockridge, Temescal, Tresle Glen, Uptown, Chinatown, Lake Merritt, City Center, Jack London Square, Frank Ogawa Plaza, Montclair and even Fruitvale and I've never had a problem. Frankly you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you SF editors stick with improving your glorious San Francisco article and leave "dangerous" and "crime infested" Oakland to us Oaklanders.98.210.215.121 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're half right: both San Francisco and Oakland have their dangerous moments. However, there is no SF editor cabal trying to keep the Oakland article down. You called me an "SF editor" which is complete fiction. I'm a longterm Oaktown resident, very happy with living near Piedmont Ave, Grand Ave and Lakeshore Ave. I have read about violent attacks and murders in my 'nice' neighborhoods, and I have heard automatic gunfire once or twice. There is absolutely a problem with Oakland's crime! You have repeatedly been sent to the San Francisco article to try and add some more crime to that article but you have not been successful. You will also not be successful trying to erase the crime from this article. I don't have any good advice for you. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You do not need to start a new title for every opinion you make, and your diatribes are bordering on a propaganda campaign. I'm also offended, as an Oaklander, at your constant comparisons to San Francisco. Oakland is its own city and doesn't need to be seen through a San Franciscan lens, as you seem to believe. The article will not gloss over Oakland's problems, nor its virtues. Go away.--Chimino (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Writters? (sp)"..."SF editors?" I have never edited the San Francisco article and I do not live in San Francisco. I am more interested in Oakland because it is the city of my birth, I lived there for many years, my sister has worked there for the past 18 years, and my son is a career officer with the Oakland Police Department.

Re: crime, let's look at the numbers:

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

I would submit that the numbers matter and paying attention to the problem, rather than ignoring it, is a valid approach. So far the consensus of the editors has been to shine a light on the problem. Apostle12 (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Oakland article is San Francisco centric. Describing Oakland as the "hub of a sub region known as the East Bay." That "sub region" is Alameda and Contra Costa counties with a population of over 2.6 million residents which is much larger than SF and the Peninsula. Oakland should be described as being located "In the geographical center of the Bay Area." Instead we get this SF centric "sub region" and "East Bay." Oakland is a proud city with its own institutions, its own symphony, its own ballet, its own museum, its own zoo and its own sports franchises. As an Oaklander I don't identify with San Francisco and never have.

The fact that Oakland is number #1 in the United Staes in climate should also be in the introduction along with its #10 walkability rating. The recent transformation of downtown with the new restaurants, pubs, and art galleries should also be in the introduction.

The Oakland article starts off as a SF centric entry and then goes on to attempt to frighten any potential Oakland investors with talk about "fault creep" and talk about how the "Hayward fault runs through Oakland." Does the San Jose article mention that the Hayward fault runs through San Jose? The San Francisco article goes out of its way to avoid talking about the Hayward and San Andreas faults and makes sure to let readers know that these faults "Do Not run through the city." Also, the article goes on to state that "many people died in Oakland" when the Loma Prieta earthquake struck the Bay Area without stating how many, and how they died.

Then we go right to the talking about Oakland's struggles right off the top. You editors like to put Oakland in a little box of crime, poverty and natural disasters. Any thinking outside that little box seems to give you a migrane.

Also the idea that by frightening potential Oakland investors with negative content about crime and natural disasters in a quantity not seen in ANY article about ANY city in the United States, is somehow "good for Oakland" is intelectually dishonest and down right mean spirited.

And no, I'm not going away and allowing editors with vested economic interests and political ideologies to run Oakland down. Your actions and manipulative ways are putting this medium in jeopardy. You're discrediting Wikipedia by manipulating these articles for economic advantage for one city over another. I don't care where you live. Tell me who you work for and we'll go from there.98.210.215.121 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on a wide range of Wikipedia articles (see my profile), and have no vested interest other than seeing a fair, quality page for my city on WP. It's quite simple, list its virtues (many of which are in the lede, which you choose to ignore) and you must also list its faults for balance. Again, Wikipedia is not meant to be your substitute for the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and attract business to the town. Wikipedia is not censored, therefore if you have an issue with its content, which most current editors find to be objective and well-sourced, you likely more have an issue with what happens in the city itself.

As far as a "subregion", the East Bay is certainly a subregion in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Perhaps you believe we should rename it the "Oakland Bay Area" to gain your approval?--Chimino (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Chimino, there is nothing "fair" about this Oakland article. The negativity is far more prevelant than the positive attributes and far more prominent. I read the SF article and I want the same impartial, fair and balanced article for Oakland. Mr. Binksternet has vowed not to let that happen. It's time to break up this unfair and manipulative medium which anyone can taylor for economic gain. Can Oakland sue Wikipedia for allowing this?98.210.215.121 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Watch out for WP:NLT or you'll be blocked. "Vowed"? I have given my opinion that it is not going to happen. I don't see why you are so concerned, writing from IP addresses in Walnut Creek and Lafayette. Perhaps you are an Oakland realtor, or commercial developer. At any rate, I don't think you are going to find satisfaction at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I get it...you simply have a screw loose. Apostle12 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten lead

Consensus? I liked the old version better, though it did need a trim. As it reads now, most of the information are factual "tidbits" which would be more appropriate in the main body of the article.--Chimino (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you wrote your critique of the "new lead" before today's edit was even completed. Please familiarize yourself with the standards for a lead paragraph. [1]

The former lead contained long specific data which belongs in the body of the article, and which I have moved. It needs further editing as does the entire article. Factual "tidbits" as you put it, are exactly what a "lead" should contain. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll await the completion of your work.--Chimino (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading the leads of other city FAs, I see you are correct. I repositioned one section in the lead, otherwise it flows well, and your edits in general are quite welcome.

Do you (or anyone else) know if it is possible to double-up (side-to-side) the neighborhood listing? I think it would improve the article visually.--Chimino (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Columns were a good idea__Done. The repositioning interrupted the flow of the type of info in the lead. I changed it back. Please wait until the lead is properly rewritten before making any changes. Thank you. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In reading the rest of the discussions above, I found a couple issues. In Wiki we don't say "My City" or someone will accuse you of ownership issues, as does welcoming me to edit. Nice, but as anyone is welcome to edit, it set off alarm bells. The discussion of "Crime" is interesting. Oakland would be better compared to Compton, which is an article I work on consistently and removed a lot of negativity. [2] is a really good article you may want to peruse. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry, I will walk away for a few days. I moved the city ratings to the end following the lead of other FA city articles such as Boston and Detroit which keep their initial paragraph strictly factual (population, founding, global claim to fame, etc). You're doing great work, and I've hoped this article could be brought up to at least GA status for a good while now.--Chimino (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Montage

I believe this article would greatly benefit from a montage as the lead photo. Any suggestions as to what should be included? The standard for similar articles appears to be 5-7 photos within the montage. There are a host of landmarks, available in varying forms (and varying quality) on Commons, which could be included: Lake Merritt, The Tribune Tower, Jack London Square, BART, Chabot Space and Science Center, Port of Oakland, the Oakland Coliseum complex, Oakland California Temple, Oakland City Hall, Chinatown, etc.--Chimino (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of montages for city articles, though many have them. Whatever is selected for the montage is necessarily shown smaller, with less detail, because of the multiplicity of images taking the space of one. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the hesitancy, and read some of the criticism regarding montages on the San Francisco page (one of the few major cities without one), but thought it may be an opportunity to highlight the features of Oakland which are largely unknown outside of the Bay Area. Anyway, just a thought.--Chimino (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why was the paragraph describing Oakland's recent change to a high tech and green economy moved from intro?

Before I added the recent information regarding the new companies in Oakland's downtown the mention of Clorox and Cost Plus was allowed in the intro and now with the addition of new companies moving to Oakland someone decided to burry that at the end of the economy papragraph. Someone decided to instead bring up the Black Panthers and the migratrion from the south of African Americans into the lead paragraph. Again we have editors manipulating this article in order to put Oakland in their little race baited box. It's clear that the editor wants to keep Oakland in its racial stereotypical and outdated image. If Oakland's new economy information is relagated to the bottom of the article then your Black Panther praragraph needs to go back to the History section. San Francisco mentions that it's home to over 30 major financial companies in its intro. Why can't Oakland mention it's new economy in the intro.

The explanation that violent crime is comprised to a small section of the city representing a few of the 35 police beats, has also now been burried in the Crime section where it meets up and completely contradicts the generalized fear mongering paragraphs. The intro flowed very well with the new information and debunked many of the stereotypes rgarding Oakland. Unfortunately, the "Black Panther" editor wants to make sure to keep Oakland in its place. Shame on you.98.210.215.121 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You were the one complaining about crime being mentioned in the lead, and now you want it back? It's fine the way it is.--Chimino (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Crime was already in the lead. It wasn't until I put the homicide issue into context as far as where and in how large a part of the city the majority of homicdes occurr, that it was moved to the Crime section. That's extremely unfair to the city of Oakland and to any readers wanting to know where the majority of homicides occurr. Isn't Oakand known for its crime? Shouldn't we explain and put crime in Oakland into context? No one had any problems with crime being in the lead when " Oakland faces many challenges including elevated levels of crime," was in the intro. Now, that I put where violent crime occurs in Oakland in the lead as an addendum to that claim, someone comes along and decides that crime should no longer be in the lead. What's going on here? Also, why put the Black Panthers in the lead and take out Pandora Radio and other high tech green Oakland companies along with the former stallworths which were in the lead originaly? If Pandora has to go to the Economy section then the Black Panthers need to go to the History section. What that editor did is completely unfair. Either stand up for a fair well balanced Oakland article or join those with an agenda to make sure that Oakland stays in the crime, minority, poverty, and disaster box. The changes I made were well researched and well placed. They captured the current essence of Oakland as a city much better then trotting out the Black Panthers in order to marginalize the city. Do what's right. Those changes should be reinstated.98.210.215.121 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the BPP is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead either, and a general note regarding the history of black activism and black culture in Oakland would be more appropriate. However, the editor in question stated above he is in the process of reediting the article, so I will await its completion to voice my concerns.--Chimino (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the idea is to include famous people from Oakland you'd think Clint Eastwood and Tom Hanks would be mentioned along with Mark Hamel. The idea seems to be to portray Oakland as a"Black" city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So add some others and de-emphasize race. And, please, stop complaining! BTW Hanks and Hamil were born in Concord, CA and Eastwood was born in San Francisco. Apostle12 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle, I'll try to stop complaining. Clint Eastwood went to Oakland Tech and grew up in Oakland. Clint is an Oaklander as is Tom Hanks who attended Skyline and even donated 100,000 to renovate the Skyline Auditorium. Clint Eastwood also made sure that one of his films "True Crime" was made in Oakland. Also, are we sure that the Pointer Sisters, Bill Russel,and Rickey Henderson were "born" in Oakland. I think it's where you grew up and attended school that's important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hanks went to Skyline High, not sure about the others. Either way, I don't think we should be naming specific individuals (or organizations) in the lead, besides the founders of the city.--Chimino (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section must not be larger than four paragraphs. I just deleted the unneeded paragraph which named some famous people, but the rest of it should be condensed, incorporated into only four paragraphs that flow neatly. Binksternet (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the change, and lead flows well together. I'll make a quick c/e, and it will be good as-is.--Chimino (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead is much improved, TY! "Black Panther Editor" is a new one for me. Highly inaccurate, but whatever. Historically BPP is worth a mention in the lead, the "anti-racism of that time is today considered one of the most significant social, political and cultural currents in U.S. history. The group's "provocative rhetoric, militant posture, and cultural and political flourishes permanently altered the contours of American Identity." (Curtis. Life of A Party. Crisis ; Sep/Oct2006, Vol. 113 Issue 5, p30-37, 8p) from BPP history. Be enlightened. Let's edit peacefully. Namaste! ... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)23:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Curtis' assertion that the BPP was "anti-racist" needs to be balanced by Pearson's excellent "Shadow of the Panther." Anti-white racism was a prominent feature of the BPP, especially during its early, rapid expansion, as anyone who lived in Oakland during the time will confirm. Apostle12 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs need to be improved.

I think we need to figure out a better lead. We nead a better introduction to present day Oakland. Let's try to figure out current Oakland. Oakland is known for its port, which is mentioned. That's a good thing. Oakland is also the very center of the Bay Area transportation network. All BART lines converge on Oakland and the 12th Street Station is the very nexus of the BART system. All major freeways also intersect in Oakland at the Macarthur Maze. So far we have a large Port which is a major engine for the Bay Area economy along with the most extensive transportation network in the Bay Area. Oakland is also now known for its burgeoning dinning and entertainment scene. Of course Oakland's #1 ranking in climate is an important fact along with the city's walkability rankings. A description of the city's topography and the linkage between the walkable commercial strips as well as the variuos downtown neighborhoods should be mentioned.

I don't like the earthquake paragraphs in the intro. It doesn't flow and makes for a clumsy lead. I don't know why talk of "fault creep" should be in Oakland's intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't want the lead to be overlong; the topography you mention can be mentioned within the body of the article. I think it reads fine, though a bit of tweaking in the 4th paragraph may be beneficial.--Chimino (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Crime, Violent Crime and Poverty

In writing the "Oakland" article, there has been a consistent tendency to link poverty with crime in general and violent crime in particular. This linkage keeps creeping back into the article, despite the fact that the correlation is far form consistent, much less has a causative link been established. During the Great Depression, for example, crime rates did not increase despite widespread economic deprivation.

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/jclavner/social_problems/SOC-2010__PDFs/crime,_violent%20crime,_poverty.pdf

Attempts to link poverty, crime and violent crime represents a departure from NPOV that is consistent with Marxist theory (i.e. "poverty causes crime). This borders on extending permission to poor people to engage in criminal activity: "I'm poor, therefore I am entitled to take what is not mine." As written, the beginning of the "Crime" section also constitutes Original Research.

I think it is fine to mention that unemployment is high in Oakland. I also think it is fine to mention that poverty is widespread in Oakland. And it is fine to mention that Oakland has a problem with elevated rates of property crime and violent crime.

IMHO, linking the three should not be attempted in this article. If some editors wish to include discussion regarding such linkage, meticulous sourcing will be necessary specifically mentioning Oakland. Apostle12 (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Apostle, with whom are you arguing about linkage? Please refrain from accusation when self reflection may be more appropriate regarding ownership. As I asked above, let us edit peacefully. TY. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As per your edit 20:45, 2 August 2011 DocOfSoc (talk | contribs) (142,069 bytes) (Undid revision 442644476 by Apostle12 (talk), where your summary stated "Proven sociological correlation"

Using San Francisco lead as an example along side O's lead, I am attempting to exorcise info that belongs in other sections and emulate S.F. 's excellent lead. It would be helpful if editors not change my edits until I get closer to completion. TY Chimono!! Double checking and re-correcting is a tremendous waste of time. A bit later, editing in concert can be very productive. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Too much for one article

Still working on lead. As I become more familiar with the article, I get the feeling it is trying to include too much in one article. Neighborhood should probably be a separate article. Headings that already have articles only need the most minimal of information. The length of the article is much beyond the norm. Categories are oddly ordered. I like Oakland, some of it is beautiful and would like to see the article reflect this. Discussion? Exhaustedly, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support the excellent, and thorough, information on Oakland's neighborhoods becoming a separate article. Apostle12 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My best work on this article is nearly all gone because a number of editors thought it was too much detail; it was about Oakland's history. I guess I should take that material and make a new article about the city's history so that this article can simply summarize it and link to it. Neighborhoods could certainly be split out, taking the list to another article. Earlier editor consensus was to have no section listing famous people; rather, the article should direct the curious to the List of people from Oakland, California. The transit information is pretty big and may deserve to be split out. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of your work detailing Oakland's history. Apostle12 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede of the "Oakland" article has ceased to be a good summary of the article body and has become promotional. For example: "Oakland has developed into a beautiful city with friendly, distinct neighborhoods." I appreciate many your edits, DocOfSoc, however sunny, promotional sentences of this sort are distinctly O.R. and unencyclopedic; besides some of Oakland's distinct neighborhoods are far from "friendly." I think you might do well to study the previous lede, which was stable for years, and reincorporate much of what it contained. Specifically some mention of Oakland's crime problem needs to appear in the lede; just added it.

You have asked other editors to refrain frome editing until you are done so as not to waste your time with "corrections." You have also engaged in mass reverts, rather than thoughtful consideration of other editors' work. Both are examples of asserting ownership. Editing "in concert" is a continuous process and totally appropriate.

In removing and/or consolidating material, please take care not to remove sourcing. You can summarize and make the article more concise without eliminating references, many of which are hard-won and support your more concise version.Apostle12 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead, history, etc.

Bink I totally support making the history of Qakland a separate article and restoring your extensive work. I empathize with your frustration. I didn't know there was a list of famous people already because it was not linked. Transit should also be considered for its own article. I appreciate your thoughtful feedback. BTW, Apostle, sources are easily retrievable along with the info in history. I give reflective thought to anything I revert. Personal attacks are never appropriate here. Repeated rv's can be considered an attempt to start an edit war in which I will not engage. I am making a sincere effort to improve this article. IMHO the lead was not good no matter how long it had stood. TY for adding "Insufficient to the poice dept. The word would not come to me late last nite. The"sunny" quote was from the City of Oakland's website, part of an effort to improve their image. Yes, crime should be mentioned in the lead and as I said I was still working on it. Again, the ownership issue is not mine, as I have already pointed out. Yes we need to work in "concert", without any sour notes. ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that most of my editing is building on your edits; these are not reversions. I did revert the "Tours" section you added today, as this sort of promotional content is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Chimino please add your input . The most glaring omission I see is the lack of the scientific and technical contributions of Oak. I believe you mentioned those above. Thank you so much for your polite patience. I am not a resident, but a frequent visitor, so please jump back in. Comparisons need to be made to several Large cites not just S<F< which I am adding in the crime section. BBL — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the lead I read last night; the current one is disjointed, with the crime being mentioned at the end out of context. I also agree with you on the "walking tours" bit, completely inappropriate, especially for the lead. Also the "ethnically diverse" line is out of place...mentioning it is "second in its own county" makes Oakland look bush league. There is too much OR in the lead now, it's disjointed, and simply an unpleasant read. Any ideas I had over minor corrections to the scientific properties pales in comparison to what I'm reading now.

Not trying to take "sides" here, but I feel the changes you made, along with the tweak by Binkersnet to scale it down to four paragraphs, were much more in-line with other WP articles than what I'm reading now.--Chimino (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The flow & choice of lead reads very well right now. You guys are doing great work. I do agree the article is too long; perhaps once we agree the lead is correct, we can decide what in the article body should stay or go.--Chimino (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you are pleased, I hope this will be a consensus so we may move forward! Apostle, we are on the same page Hurray! Bink, your turn :-) Resident admin and nameless person please join in. Thank you. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The new lead reads well. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

TY! WE have a good team working here ! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Paring Down

Now that we've come to consensus on a satisfactory lead, we should begin to discuss where to trim the fat on what is an overlong, excessively-detailed article. What jumps out to me is detailed listings in the Nighlife and Education sections...I don't think it's necessary to list names of specific bars and nightclubs which could be gone in a year or two, nor is it necessary to mention every public school in the city. I'm sure others have their pet peeves with the article...thoughts?--Chimino (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes you have made so far look fine. It's not a peeve (the information is actually pretty interesting), however I think the neighborhood section could easily be its own article with a link to it from the main article. This would remove quite a few words, and most people won't even notice. Apostle12 (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought about the neighborhood article so agree with Apostle. What Chimino said above sounds good too. I really appreciate working as a team! Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

After perusing education, I find we really don't mention all the public schools in the city (102). :-D I have trimmed and consolidated a bit and IMHO the info there is both interesting and pertinent. I think that now all it desperately needs is an update. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Very good; I created a List of neighborhoods in Oakland, California similar to the neighborhood listings of other cities. The section reads much better as a result. Feel free to add text or anything else to the article over there.--Chimino (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job C! TY! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewable power, green electricity

Oakland came in at the top of a list of the 50 largest US cities using electricity from renewable sources. The huge array of wind-harvesting spinners at Altamont Pass helped push Oakland to 17% renewables, comfortably ahead of the three-way tie for second place at 12%. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Top Ten US Cities for Renewable Energy, SustainLane Government

Noted in lead, TY — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Farmer's markets

Does anybody know how Oakland ranks in the popularity or quantity of its farmer's markets? It seems to me that the city has a good number of them, possibly more than other cities, or more patronage, or more per capita. Also, it seems to me that local urban agriculture in Oakland is growing in popularity. I wonder if something about Oakland's homegrown foods is worthy of inclusion in the article? Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to research that? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab, no results. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)