Talk:Oakland, California/Archive 3

POV in the Crime section

"The drug trade came onto the scene during the 1970s, concurrent with the rise of black militantism, which created a culture of drug dealing and violence." This is a ridiculously un-encyclopedic claim to make. I will remove this sentence, and attempt to make the rest of this section make sense without it - but someone with *citations* and less POV, please rewrite the "Crime" section! I'm removing this immediately rather than waiting for input, since it's "doubtful and harmful" unsourced material.

Eeblet (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the correlation between the start of the drug trade, the rise of Black militantism and the subsequent rise in crime and violence is rather a strong one, as many analysts have noted--not just in Oakland, but in all cities where young Black people simultaneously involved themselves in the drug trade and embraced violent ideologies. I added an incisive, finely pointed source on this issue--just look at the quotes from various Black Panther and Black Muslim leaders, and you will see that the association is not the least bit far-fetched. Your talk page says you are "youngish," so perhaps the necessary historical perspective is lacking. I am in my sixties and grew up in Oakland and Berkeley, so I remember when elevated levels of crime and violence did not exist, even in the poor areas of these cities. Relative poverty and affluence have nothing to do with this cultural phenomenon, as anyone who grew up during the Great Depression will tell you. I remember when it all began; Wikipedia readers deserve to be informed of this perspective. If you disagree and you are willing to source it, you can always insert a countervailing perspective--perhaps the clearly Marxist perspective that poverty causes, and even justifies, crime. Apostle12 (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, we have a disagreement on Black Power and the causes of violence and drugs in the ghetto. Your own personal biography and interpretations ("look at the quotes from various Black Panther and Black Muslim leaders, and you will see that the association is not the least bit far-fetched") are valid, but not on a Wikipedia article.... especially because your claims can be considered "harmful". You seem to have a personal bone to pick, and I would like to get a few more perspectives and a better-written section here before leaving anything on the connection between black power and drugs and violence. Please do bring in some other users! Thanks, Eeblet (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not put any aspect of my personal biography, or my interpretations, in the article; they are confined to this talk page and are included only so you might know where I am coming from. These are not "my" claims; they are a mainstream perspective. I have no personal bone to pick, however it seems to me that political correctness has worked to limit discussion on these issues, usually by claiming that such discussions are "harmful" in and of themselves. I do not believe you can show that this is so, and I do not believe including this perspective in the discussion is harmful in any way. It is not within my power to "bring in some other users;" they will have to arrive on their own and provide varied, well-sourced perspectives to balance the article. As always I encourage that. Apostle12 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your addition of the "Fact" tags. Are you serious? Can these two statements possibly be considered controversial? They are common knowledge in Oakland. Apostle12 (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Crime is always controversial and needs to have published statistics or established, published opinion to back it up. Fact tags are perfectly appropriate where unsourced comments about crime are found. Binksternet (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Apostle12, I live in Oakland and find your condescension frustrating. My only goal here is to have the Oakland article read like an encyclopedia entry - it's currently slightly better than a MySpace page. Let's all work together to improve it! If we can reach consensus about what's encyclopedic, it will make the page better.

Oh, and - blogs and editorials are not sufficient sources. Please remove all your improperly sourced statements and get rid of sentences that you can't write without using weasel words. Eeblet (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Editorials offering differning perspectives merely support the statement that the cause of Oakland's enormous increase in crime during the 1960s and 1970s is "controversial." All other statements of fact are supported by census data, census estimates, crime reports, and other reliable sources. For many years I was a longtime resident of Oakland and nearby Berkeley, and I maintain strong links to the city--my wife, my son, my sister, and several friends work in Oakland. One very close friend owns a large engineering firm with offices in Oakland. While I no longer make my home in Oakland, I visit often and have a strong affection for the city. Perhaps my reference to historical perspective seemed condescending, though I am not sure if that is what you are referring to. If I came off that way, I apologize; it's just that most younger folks assume Oakland must always have been afflicted with high levels of crime, which is not true. I think an understanding of Oakland's history, especially with respect to crime, is helpful for all residents--that is my goal in editing this article. Apostle12 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I took out a blog used as reference and I took out all the sentences that set up a parallel between black population increase and crime. Thomas Sowell, conservative writer for National Review and a black man, says that Oakland's crime does not increase with poverty or race demographics. It increases with drugs and a sense of entitlement. Heather Mac Donald, conservative writer for City Journal, says that Black Panthers added significantly to crime rates but that monies flowing into Oakland in the War On Poverty were also a factor. People who feel that the world owes them a living commit more crimes than those who feel that success comes from hard work and/or from clever application of solutions to problems. We don't need to have the crime section vilify blacks, in fact, many African Americans in Oakland have achieved middle and upper class comfort by becoming pillars of the community. Make drugs and malaise the enemy. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"We don't need to have the crime section vilify blacks"....of course. It is Thomas Sowell's points that I agree with--that some untoward cultural changes took place within African American culture, starting during the 1960s and moving forward into the present. The exact nature of these changes remains controversial, however every American city with a significant black population has experienced exactly the same increase in lawlessness, which disproportionately affects blacks themselves--including those who have achieved middle and upper class comfort. Oakland is but one of those cities. I do think it appropriate to mention the link between black population increase and crime; the intent is not to vilify African Americans, rather it is to point up that there must be some cultural factor within the African American community that is responsible.

There is a significant problem with your most recent edit of the "Crime" section: specifically you have attempted to take Thomas Sowell's crime statistics and make them specific to the City of Oakland, when in fact they referred to the United States as a whole. Oakland's murder rate did not "peak in 1934." In fact, prior to World War II Oakland was a peaceful city, with a very low crime rate. I have reverted your most recent edit for this reason, since it is grossly inaccurate." Apostle12 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about putting words in Sowell's mouth... I was thinking Oakland Oakland Oakland and missed the part where he switched to a national point of view. Thanks for correcting that. You know, I wonder what Oakland's murder rate was in every year that police kept track of such things. It would be interesting to chart it. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we really should do that research. For murder and other crimes as well. Should be interesting. Apostle12 (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the link between black population and crime: I won't delete such an observation if it is made by a respected authority and referenced. I will if two parallel statistics are offered with the connection inferred. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet, thank you for contributing to the Crime section - I have no more beef with it, as everything seems to be both well-written and well-sourced. Eeblet (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Even with all of our hard work hammering on the lack of references for the Crime section, it still has too many facts and too little summary analysis. The flow of reading is very bumpy with numbers. It doesn't say anything about the Black Panthers or Your Black Muslim Bakery. It doesn't talk about government graft or white collar crime. It doesn't talk about white-on-white crime or Latino-on-Latino crime and it doesn't really go into enough depth about the current and historic role of the police. There's still room for improvement. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like people are just cutting and pasting crime statistics to prove the point that crime happens in Oakland. Most cities don't even have a crime section. Every city has crime and Oakland doesn't need a crime section with lots of numbers. It needs to be rewritten and summarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamcinema (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, pick one: section needs to be rewritten or don't need the section at all. o_O What the section needs is more development, not deletion. One thing the recent large-scale deletion edit by Dreamcinema did was, without supporting reference, to rephrase a sentence so that it stated that crime in Oakland increased with unemployment. I believe the unemployment figures are parallel to crime figures but that they are not the only factor. Conditions of widespread unemployment have been historically linked to decreased crime rates... look at general crime stats during the Great Depression to find the proof. Something else besides unemployment is afoot in the rise of "Black-on-Black" crime in inner city areas. It will continue to be enlightening for us and for our readers if we can find scholarly studies or institutional reports about Oakland's crime and its complex basis.

I can't agree that this article should not have a Crime heading. Oakland consistently ranks high in violent crime and the issue should be addressed. This can't be swept under the rug. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an explanation of where the crime happens would be a big improvement. San Francisco does not have a crime section. I know SF has crime. When it does talk about crime in it's neighborhoods section. Having a crime section also feeds the perception that Oakland is really bad place come. Oakland happens to have a very high African American population. Could it be interpreted that the users are editing this section want to warn people not to come Oakland or that they will be victimized by African Americans? The section does not explain where the majority of crime happens? I don't understand the blanket statistics that don't explain anything other then Oakland is a bad place to come which is not true. As an Oaklander I don't agree with the poorly written crime section. Dreamcinema 11:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've lived as an adult in Oakland for 18 years and I've never been threatened, robbed or assaulted. I know very well that some neighborhoods are better than others, to a degree. Nevertheless, criminal activity gets around widely by car -- my relatively safe neighborhood (one with high priced restaurants and shopping) has recently seen a murder during a restaurant robbery and a big jump in street muggings followed by car getaways. Some gangbangers chasing other gangbangers drove past last week on the main drag while popping at each other with guns. When criminals drive, there's no place perfectly safe. As boosterish as you seem to be about Oakland's good side (which is very lovely), the truth is somewhere in between. Random people sometimes get caught in the crossfire.

There's no need to compare the Oakland article with other city articles, as the editors here arriving at a consensus can shape this article a completely different way than other city articles. Even if we were to look outside for direction, we could note that Richmond, Compton and San Bernardino go into detail about their crime rates. Let the SF folks put their heads in the sand about it... we don't need to copy their style.

If you like, you can locate records for crime rates in different neighborhoods and add that information to the article here. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove the crime section and add relevant crime information to the neighborhoods. Every time I try to improve it gets reverted making this a bit frustrating. People are more interested in keeping status quo rather then improving. It has repetitive broad statements about Oakland being the 4th more dangerous in California that are not realistic in all parts of the city. Piedmont is in the center of Oakland and doesn't have these problems. It it were a district of Oakland you would think it would be subject to drive by shootings. Walking at night in Montclair or Rockridge is not the same is being on International Blvd and 98th Ave. Of course I'm not saying that crime doesn't happen in the nicer parts of Oakland but reading crime section makes it seem like in any part of Oakland you stepped outside the green zone in Iraq. Dreamcinema (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

<--If crime stats are added to the neighborhood sections I think that's okay. If the overall Crime section is taken out of the article as a whole, I think we will lose a critical sense of scale and proportion. Not only that, but the whole city must answer the problem of its various neighborhoods. Crime has been and will continue to be a city-wide concern. Oakland citizens, Oakland police and Oakland politicians will need to fix the root problems before the crime rate gets any better. Every Oakland property owner pays for the problems of the neighborhoods via taxes. Realtors and business people who rely on a continuing stream of outsiders attracted to Oakland's charms will eventually have to buckle down and help with a solution to the crime problem. Broadcasting the fact that the problems are primarily in some other neighborhood will yield only short term benefits. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a combination approach is the right one: the crime section could the big picture, Oakland's crime rates in the context of the US (which are notable), and also some historical bg. The rest could go to the neighborhood sections, as Binksternet suggests. -Eeblet (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Crime" section could mention the overall statistics with brief descriptions of individual neighborhoods. Greater detail on crime could be added to the neighborhood sections. One of my primary concerns is that tourists coming to Oakland for the first time might be able to get a quick rundown on neighborhoods that are definitely dangerous and to be avoided. A couple of years back some tourists decided to walk from their downtown hotel to the beach, which took them through San Francisco's Fillmore District. Coming from Europe they didn't have a clue how dangerous some city center neighborhoods can be; most of the "bad" neighborhoods in their country are in the suburbs ringing the central city. They were attacked and the man was murdered after trying to defend his wife, who was badly injured.

You brought up Piedmont, which exists in the very center of Oakland and which has a very low crime rate. Albany is another low-crime East Bay enclave. Those two communities have a zero-tolerance attitude towards criminals--criminals have NO PLACE in Albany or Piedmont, and the police do everything they can to run them out of town. If a crack house opens up in Albany (usually near the Berkeley border), the Albany police will park a cruiser in front of the house 24 hours a day until business dries up and the criminals move away. Harrassment? Yes...so what? When he was 16, my son was attacked by an armed thug when he and his friends parked near a crack house in Berkeley near the Berkeley/Albany border. I spoke with the Berkeley chief of police, Gus Porter, and he said the following. "Oh, yeah, that house has been there for years." I asked him why he didn't make sure it was closed down if he knew right where it was. His comment was "Criminals have rights too. Every city has its criminals and we have to make a place for them." Well...no! It is not necessary to violate anyone's civil rights to get rid of criminals; all that is necessary is to apply sufficient pressure so that the criminals either change their ways or go elsewhere. Giuliani set things in motion to make this happen in New York, and it is now the safest large city in the country. Oakland can do it too, provided it has the political will to do so. Tolerance of criminal activity is insanity. Apostle12 (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody care if I tackle rewriting the crime section? If it turned this in junior high school teacher the way it is now, I probably would get an F. (Dreamcinema (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, have at it. Wikipedia articles, especially frequently updated sections like this one, tend to get progressively more clunky in terms of writing style as further additions are made by different editors. A rewrite could help. It's always nice to regain the sense that one voice is relating all the information. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting is fine just so long as you don't eliminate sourced information in at attempt to push a particular POV. The "Crime" section is pretty balanced (finally!) and the basic statistics are there. Please retain these good features. Thanks!Apostle12 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pushing a POV is one thing, but "eliminating sourced information" is ocasionally needed where sources are fringe or not WP:RS. A source in and of itself is not a suit of armor for all manner of edits. CriticalChris 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be somewhat off topic, but I want to mention that over the past year, the crime section has become _extremely long_. I don't think any other city in the country with a wiki-crime section is anywhere near this length. Can it be shortened at all, in a reasonable manner? Do we really need every single Morgan Quitno/CQ press (whatever they call themselves now) ranking, and so many numbers? Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlikuski (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dlikuski, The CQ study was quite newsworthy when it came out a few months back; that it attempts to be a statistical zeitgiest of Oakland's infamy, or on the other hand, if it had flawed methodology, might make it worthy of inclusion in particular context here. CriticalChris 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The crime section needs to have a strong focus on what is wrong in Oakland and, if it has that, it doesn't need to be long. The problem is that we don't have suitable quotes from expert observers who have briefly summed up the whole problem. What we have instead is a bunch of material from here and there and everywhere. By the way, don't put a tab or a few spaces in front of your paragraph here or it won't display properly. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Oakland's "Crime" section is so long because it is rather a complex problem, rooted in social/political/cultural problems that are themselves difficult to describe. Binksternet is right that suitable quotes from expert observers would help make the article shorter, however saying ANYTHING general about crime is a political hot potato--therefore the emphasis on statistics, since bare facts at least convey a part of the reality in objective terms.Apostle12 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read this article and believe that this article can be so much better if we created a separate page for crime in Oakland and link it to this article (much like the Detroit wikipedia entry at the time of this writing). Also the crime section should be its own section, not under geography. In fact, there's several sections that should not be under geography (demographics, sports, etc...)

Is it really necessary to have the police spokesman's city-blanketing quote included at the end? Although it is an actual quote, it is very insulting. Do we really want a new reader to think that every of the 50+ square miles of Oakland is dangerous from such a quote? The spokesperson said something very similar but less indicative-sounding, for the late Aug big-rig officer-shooting incident in the Trib. http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_13234910?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com In any case, with this crime section already adding insult to Oakland's injury with so many numbers and wordings, this quote seems to figuratively act as the nail in the coffin. Does anyone else feel the same way? dlikuski (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, the quotation is from OPD's official spokesman, is certainly notable, and is as close as we can get to an encyclopedic source that reflects the sentiments of at least department command staff, if not the department's rank-and-file. I certainly have no objections, per se, to a contrasting quotation(s) from OPOA's Bob Valladon, Copwatch, the real estate development community, or other political activists. Nonetheless, this quotation is most certainly a notable one, despite your opinions that Jeff was tarring the town with a broad brush. If anything, one could argue this highlights an example of police making the type of generalization fallacies that lead to racial profiling and other civil liberties abuses. In any event, a broad spectrum of violent crimes (I define a burglary of an occupied dwelling as a violent crime) and property crimes occur across a broad spectrum of Oakland neighborhoods, citywide; they're not just limited to 98th and Cherry. I welcome a counter-argument, but I do believe at the same time here, Dlikiuski, you're committing a fallacy of slothful induction by denying strong statistical inferences about how dangerous Oakland really is, even when considered as a whole. To put it in other terms, it's been said that most cities have pockets of dangerous areas, whereas Oakland has pockets of safe areas. If true, would this make Oakland any less dangerous overall? Do you disagree with this premise of the "pockets" theory I just outlined? CriticalChris 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OB&E rail link

I keep taking out this External link:

• OB&E Long gone streetcars, interurbans and freight trains in Oakland.

The reasons I feel it does not belong are very strong:

• The link covers light rail that used to run in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Colma, Contra Costa County, Alameda County and the East Bay in general. If the link belonged in any one geographical place article, it would be either East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) or San Francisco Bay Area.
• The article here is about Oakland the city, not about rail lines that used to exist. The best places for that link are East Bay Electric Lines and Key System, where it is already represented.
• The link isn't sponsored by the city of Oakland.

I wish all the best to dlevy who created the OB&E website. Me, I love Oakland's history, I dig trains, and I am very interested in the interurban debacle that happened in the mid-20th century. No matter; this link doesn't belong here. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. However, I don't think including it does any harm and it provides one more source for period photographs. If other editors want to include it, I support its inclusion. Apostle12 (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With that loose criteria, we would suddenly sprout a linkfarm, which we've had in the past. It wasn't pretty. WP:NOTLINK. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP -- Actually, WP:NOTLINK provides "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article" and castigates "photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." In contrast, these photos have substantive accompanying text. Let's also consider Wikipedia:External links. That being said, I support the inclusion of this useful, educational link. In addition, including it here provides a short path for an editor who wishes to try to add some of the images to Wikimedia commons, where they could then be added to this article to enhance it's multidimensionality. CriticalChris 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Binksternet's fears about "suddenly sprout(ing) a linkfarm" are highly exaggerated. I'm siding with Critical Chris on this one. Apostle12 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the encyclopedic content at OB&E; I have not ever taken the position that the site's photos are not accompanied by excellent explanatory text. The external link is about interurban rail, this article is about a city. Why have wiki editors put OB&E links into the Oakland and Berkeley articles but not into Emeryville, El Cerrito, Richmond or San Leandro? Why not at East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area)? It's a crap shoot. I have just added the OB&E link to the Interurban article where it is perfectly suited, but I still say any city article isn't where OB&E should live. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would submit that wiki editors have no obligation to add a link everywhere it might be appropriate. In this case, the OB&E link could well appear in articles relating to the East Bay cities you name; I have never edited those articles because my interest is slight. You seem simply stubborn on this issue, Binksternet. If you are in no mood to listen to reason, perhaps you might consider yielding to consensus. Apostle12 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "consensus" hasn't been reached here. I could yield to two other editors whose opinions differ from mine, and then we would have consensus. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rail and streetcar transport is arguably much more significant to Oakland's history and development as an urban center than the extensive amount of material on aviation and airports, and car factories in this article. This raises issues of WP:weight, and thus the "streetcar suburbs" section could and should be greatly expanded, along with additional accompanying external links, not rising to the level of a "linkfarm" as you warn, but enough to make the external links section more useful to a researcher/scholar/etc. I still have yet to see how this is irrelevant to an article about Oakland, since rail transport has been, and will continue to be, a significant aspect of what has made Oakland the city it is today, and the city it will become in the future. Though at the present we may not be able to see all of the grade crossings, and extensive tracks that once ran from the flatlands up into arterial streets in the hills, intracity and intercity rail transport in Oakland basically shaped the land use patterns that characterize Oakland today. What in your mind characterizes the history of a "city" anyways if it's not said city's geography, transportation, land use, architecture, people, economic systems, and cultural traditions? In regards to the inclusion of this link in articles on the other East Bay Cities, I do try to mind my own edits, but those articles might be suitable candidates for this external link also. To be clear, I'm not with any of the didactic public relations machines and think tanks now infiltrating WP, but no one should be "having editors" (as you say) or directing editors, or orchestrating any editors here to include links in any one article, or to do any other orchestrated editing for that matter, which is how the tone of your question appears to me. It's also a fallacy of logic on your part to argue that, since this OB&E link has not yet been included in the Berkeley article, that it therefore also has no place in the Oakland article here either. CriticalChris 17:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the record, my opinion differs from yours on this issue of including this link. CriticalChris 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The link does appear in the Berkeley article—no fallacy. As for your other arguments, I would welcome a prose expansion of how Oakland was shaped by rail. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my error, substitute "Emeryville" for "Berkeley." On rail, where do I start? Once Oakland became the Western Terminus of the transcontinental railroad, passenger trains could often run hours, or days late, especially if the Donner Pass was snowed in; if you didn't fall in love with the weather here upon stepping onto the train platform here, if you had family picking you up in a carriage, or on horses, to take you out to a neighboring town to start your new life, they might have to put themselves up in a hotel down near 7th and Broadway to wait for you. On the contrary, you might have to put yourself in a hotel to wait for them to arrive. Though there was limited telegraph communication, there were no cell phones, and likely extremely few land lines for that matter, and no SUV's to jaunt back over the hills down to the train station the next morning; communications were more difficult compared to our modern life. There were capitalists that bankrolled their own streetcar lines, such as Hiram Tubbs who created his horse-drawn "Tubbs line" to bring wealthy vacationers out to his Tubbs Hotel on 5th Avenue; this later evolved into the Key System A line and soon a Bus Rapid Transit system on 12th Street. The railroad also created demand back east for the cherries, apricots, peaches, nectarines, plums, and other produce from the orchards of East Oakland, after all, there were no vertically-integrated corporate agribusiness 'big rigs' or wide freeways lanes to accommodate them for that matter. Later, the transport of steel, cars, and other durable industrial goods produced at Oakland foundries and factories was facilitated by extensive rail spurs meandering into the nooks of industrial districts, the remnants of which can be seen in the form of tracks running alongside warehouses near Jack London Square (folks often park their private cars on these rights-of-way) and rail spurs running through West and East Oakland streets. Later, the Key System carried businesspeople from Downtown Frisco back to their homes in the hills...and the staircases which lead to them. Have you ever walked some of these staircases above the Rockridge, Dimond, and Laurel districts? They're worth the climb if within your ability. Streetcars also aggregated land values near the arterial avenues in the flatlands, which helped make multi-level, multi-family apartment buildings pencil out for landlords and their banks. Later, once the key system was dissolved by a business conspiracy, the BART system was planned which affected all sorts of land use from office skyscrapers built downtown during the 1970's and 1980's, to the consideration of the siting a new professional sports stadium, to transit-oriented mid rise buildings built during the 21st century. These are but a few topics, but I'd argue rail generall has had everything to do with Oakland's evolution, and to a greater extent here than in many other American cities. CriticalChris 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had imagined a prose expansion of the article, not the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

<==(undent) OB&E is young Mr. Levy's excellent website effort that shows the skill of a savvy and dedicated high schooler. Now that Levy is off getting his math degree at college, oberail.org is suffering from a degree of neglect. Within the site, there are a few links such as http://rail.carlsoft.net/pantograph/wp-content/photos/miscellaneous/20070501_5.jpg which are no longer working. However, for the aid of this article about Oakland, there are organizational issues which are more in need of attention. There's a promising "Oakland, Calif." link which takes the reader to a disappointing page talking about a couple of memorial panels placed by Levy and friends. It doesn't take the reader to an encompassing view of Oakland, one which might talk about the real estate speculators pushing lines out to the 'burbs, or about the competition between Key System and Santa Fe for Oakland's rights-of-way. Levy doesn't study the growth of Oakland in particular. I don't expect that he ever intended for his website to have this application; a requirement I believe is reasonable for inclusion at this Oakland, California article. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, easy killer! You seem to be using "young" and "high schooler" in a pejorative sense. I suspect your attitude is not very well aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia:ATTACK and WP:NOOB (for all you know Levy is editing this article) and it's also so gracious of you to refer to one page on his trail project over in Sheperd Canyon as "disappointing," though I do agree that his site is not "an encompassing view of Oakland." Yet it's utility in the context of this encyclopedia article may not so much be due to any global view of Oakland, or lack therof, but rather as a place where Levy has pulled together a decent assortment of historic photographs of Oakland trains and streetscapes, which are, nonetheless, accompanied by a modicum of narrative. Also you say - "I don't expect that he (Levy) ever intended for his website to have this application; a requirement I believe is reasonable for inclusion at this Oakland, California article." Really? Should the producer of a secondary source intend their content to have an encyclopedic application as a "requirement" for its inclusion here? With that criteria, these links Oaklandish;GreatSchools.net arguably don't belong here, notwithstanding the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING I welcome a strong, educated rebuttal as to the intent of these websites, besides selling T-shirts, in one case, and in another case, banner ads for vacum cleaners, and real estate firms. CriticalChris 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

A fellow-Oakland "Wiki'r" encouraged me to bring the following to discussion:

Regarding the mention of the Kaiser Center opening the 1950's-60's section, I found some cool info about it in an out-of-print book (_Oakland: Hub of the West_ by David Weber for anyone curious). I typed a passage from it into my search engine, and it took me to an interesting article with similar wording. Anyway, does anyone have any objection or alternative suggestion, if we make the restructuring/addition below? I quoted the additional line, despite already using the link, since I couldn't think of another way to word it. Also, the print for the link is hard to read, even magnified--hopefully that doesn't hinder. http://books.google.com/books?id=FrMj_wenLdcC&pg=PA72&dq=%22tower+west+of+chicago%22

• SUGGESTION

In 1960, Kaiser Corporation erected its headquarters at the former site of Holy Names University, a parcel at the corner of 20th and Harrison Streets. It was the largest skyscraper in Oakland, as well as "the largest office tower west of Chicago" up to that time.

or, would it be better--if worthwhile--to just add it to the caption under the image of the building, on the 'Henry J. Kaiser' wiki-page?

Referring back to #1, I thought of it, considering how Chi-town was (and still is) notorious for skyscrapers. I think that the addition makes a statement for Oakland's bold approach to not only interesting architecture, but showing a sense of....competition perhaps, to even other big cities (i.e. SF and LA).

Thank you for your thoughts.

Dlikuski (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. The poor scan of the source book doesn't stop its usefulness as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, B-- I will follow through then. If anyone else thinks of amendments afterwards, we can work those in. Dlikuski (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Location of the "Crime" section

Recently, at the suggestion of another editor, I moved the "Crime" section out of "Demographics." The other editor made what I considered to be a valid point--that the "Crime" section deserved its own standing and had little to do with demographics.

Now it's back in "Demographics." Why? Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, you raise a good question sir. Let me get back to you on this after reading WP:USCITY, perhaps Binksternet's and other editors thoughts, and after getting some sleep. CriticalChris 06:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I made that change based on WP:USCITY, which offers only a bare mention. Any placement of the Crime section is okay, as long as editors reach consensus about it. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it mentioned at WP:USCITY? I can't seem to find it at all over there, care to point me in the right direction on this one? I'd like to read more about that. CriticalChris 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you search for the word "crime" at that guideline page you'll see it says that crime information might be added to the demographics section, if desired. Makes sense to me. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I kind of thought the previous (new) location worked. As I think about it, having the "Crime" section as a subset of "Demographics" is troubling to me, as it implies that crime is linked to demographics. Perhaps another location might be better to avoid that implication. Any thoughts?Apostle12 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind crime going under demographics, since the crime section talks quite frankly about which fractions of the population are more and less associated with crime. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how one defines "demographics." If issues of race and culture come to mind, that's one issue, but if one thinks of issues of class, income and economics, one could make a strong argument there's a link between crime and poverty. Regardless, I think crime, as an urban issue, is so high on the scale of significance for Oakland, that it may make sense for it to be in it's own standalone section. I'm inclined to side with Apostle12 on this. CriticalChris 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about simply making it a level 2 heading, or are you talking about doing that plus moving the section somewhere else? If the latter, where? Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When I moved it before, it became item "9 Crime" just after "8 Infrastructure" (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oakland,_California&oldid=303696996). That was an arbitrary choice, however it did seem to be appropriately placed in terms of importance. Apostle12 (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't heading 5, following "4 Demographics" work better? I still see the Crime section as one where population numbers are compared—a demographics exercise. I prefer Crime remaining a level 3 heading, but would compromise with level 2 following Demographics. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine.Apostle12 (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Critical Chris' recent changes to the lede, 2000's edits

Your recent changes to the lede make it far too long. The material you incorporated is covered in other sections of the article, and you deleted (or made less prominent) critical information. Many of the sentences were poorly constructed, and the writing lacked clarity. It seems inappropriate to me to make such radical changes to the lede without first proposing same on talk, explaining your reasons.

The changes you made to the 2,000's section contain too much editorialization. For example, you purport to know the motivation of the rioters--as though they universally shared the same motivation of justifiable anger at the police and city officials--when in fact we know that many of those who rioted do not live in Oakland and were simply anarchists who siezed on the moment to travel to Oakland and create chaos. The actions of the rioters have been condemned even by many community activists. That Oscar Grant was wrongly killed is, after all, not in question; the only question is whether or not the killing was intentional or an accident, and that question will be decided by a jury in a court of law. Also you refer to the police as though they are a monolithic entity, when in fact Oscar Grant was killed by a BART policeman, not an Oakland city policeman. You imply that a certain viewpoint is a given--namely that the police are not held to account for wrongdoing in Oakland, whether they be BART police or Oakland city police. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the very aggressive stance taken by Oakland's internal affairs review boards and the fact that Oakland's criminal class makes a game of routinely filing false claims against officers, specifically officers who do their jobs by enforcing the law, in order to diminish their effectiveness. There is NO evidence that the killing of Oscar Grant is typical behavior, either among BART police or Oakland city police, nor is there ANY evidence that the internal affairs departments of both entities are lax in their investigation of complaints and prosecution of wrongdoing.

I've reverted the changes you made because I believe they harm the article. Apostle12 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Apostle12. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about the lede for now; I will come back to the 2000s issues in a few days or so. I edited the lede, because IMHO, it lacked substance and detail reflecting at least some of the arguably more significant aspects of the article. And of course, the lede should reflect material covered in other sections of the article as per WP:LEDE. I wasn't going for greater length in and of itself, but rather, I am not completely uncomfortable with the length of the lede as I had edited it. WP:LEDE recommends no more than 4 paragraphs, yet the NYC article has six punchy paragraphs, go figure. For comparison, I suggest you visit featured articles New York City and Seattle. I did delete the mention of the headquartering of Cost Plus World Market in Oakland, and a few other corporations in the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Remember that APL has greatly cutback it's Oakland workforce, though I haven't seen data on that issue since a newspaper article about APL's layoffs several months ago. I am open to a compelling argument that the major corporations with facilities here are notable enough for prominent inclusion in the lede, though you'd have an uphill battle on your hands in that respect. I welcome a substantive criticism of what you purport are poorly constructed sentences and unclear writing; why not collaboratively help edit those sentences to make them more clear? In keeping with WP:BOLD, I believe it's entirely appropriate to me to make radical changes to the lede, or any other section of the article for that matter --without-- first proposing said changes on the talk page. I'm proposing a bold revert, which I may still pull the trigger on, but is there anything in the lede I had edited that you would include, exclude, or word differently? Did I miss something in my efforts to better summarize the article? The lede could be a bit more engrossing, to entice readers to read further, yet it seems like very dry toast to me in its current condition. CriticalChris 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably take me several hours to attempt an in-depth analysis of the lede as your wrote it; unfortunately I simply don't have the time to do that for a couple of days

More enticing...fine. But I don't think you achieved that with bogus references to "high-profile assassinations" (what,of a Lincoln or a Kennedy?...Chauncey Bailey may have been well known in the city itself, but he was hardly well-known elsewhere), or the raising of "gentrification" and "embourgoisement" (sp) to the status of crises. What you wrote was rambling, and it lacked focus.

You also buried the 1852 founding date of the city in a sentence refering to "incorporation"--yes, we get the point, there were plenty of people (Native Americans, Mexicans) living in the area before it was called "Oakland," but this article is about the City of Oakland. There was a strange "politically correct" stench to the revised lede, almost an agenda, much like the simultaneous "2,000's" edit.

Really...I think the lede was much better before, which is why I reverted it. I do think it goes beyond "bold" to mess with the lede with no discussion, especially if you are writing with an obvious agenda. Apostle12 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though the lede isn't yet ideal, CC's version had these problems:

• PC commentary such as "rapidly deforested", "embourgeoisement"
• figurative colloquial wording: "has seen its share"
• Oakland hasn't had a single high-profile assassination
• too much history detail in lede
• Peralta chasing aboriginal people into California's interior has little to do with Oakland
• cherry-picked POV selection of historic moments such as general strike of 1946 and Black Panther party founding
• Kumbaya-flavored wording: "Oakland has grown from a rainbow of immigrants from around the globe"

Certainly, we want the lede to neatly address the article contents, per WP:LEDE but there's not a driving need to describe much city history, in my opinion. That material, if summarized coherently, will push the lede beyond the maximum recommended four paragraphs. I feel that we need only hit the high points of current conditions. Binksternet (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Oakland has had assassinations, such as Dr. Marcus Foster and Chauncey Bailey, both of which were arguably of a high news profile and covered in the national news media. One was at the height of the Symbionese Liberation Army's heyday, and the other was covered in the context of a very rare assassination of an American journalist who was killed for his news coverage. Isn't that notable? Of course, in no way are they are on par with the assassinations of McKinley, JFK, MLK, or RFK; these persons were presidents and national leaders. What does rapid deforestation and economic embourgeoisement have to do with political correctness? Would you prefer the termsclearcutting and gentrification? History does belong in the lede of a good or featured article; see New York City for an example; that article's lede alludes to the time of Peter Stuyvesant. Peralta's chasing indians into the valley has everything to do with Oakland's history, as much as Anglo settlers like Horace Carpentier who were later blamed for swindling the Peralta family's land. Does that belong in the lede, maybe not, but maybe so. I disagree that this article should be just about the current "city of Oakland." It could cover the history of the land area that is currently incorporated as Oakland. The general strike of 1946 and the the founding of the BPP are certainly notable aspects of Oakland's 20th century history. If they are not, than what is?...aviation stuff and the first airmail flight? Gimme a break! A "rainbow of immigrants" ...like it or not, Oakland is the second most diverse city in the US, and its immigrant denizens are a significant part of the current social, economic, and political fabric. We can change the wording on that, but it's a notable aspect. I'm revising my lede to address some of your concerns and then replacing it with the current underdeveloped, pathetic, pseudo-advertisement lede. Please tell me you're not a Clorox shareholder who hasn't read WP:NOTADVERTISING. CriticalChris 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing "rainbow". You are still picking your historic moments for effect, and I disagree with your choices. You want Ohlone land taken by Spaniards but you don't have Mexican land taken by Anglos. Your over-logged tree is the redwood but what about the oak? There was no such thing as clearcutting back in the 19th century, there was only logging, and only one way that it was done by Americans, so today's negative term "clearcutting" doesn't apply. You mention an extensive streetcar network but not the thriving Oakland automobile industry which contributed to its death. There's no mention of canning, one of Oakland's boring-but-vital industries for the first half of the 20th century. There's no mention of the huge housing boom of the teens and '20s. You put aviation as an industry in but we weren't really making airplanes, we were only flying them. It's not your fault, but the article doesn't mention Oakland's place as one of the important centers for the powerful Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, though not the birthplace of it, which is Harlem. By writing "the birthplace of the first African-American-organized labor union", you are making an error—you are teasing the reader with a peek at something they will not learn about by carefully scanning the article. Assassinations? No effing way... if MLK was shot at the Sage Motel on MacArthur Blvd then I'd say yes, put something in the lede about assassination. Foster and Bailey made the news, but they were murdered, not assassinated. A lot of events that happened here make national news, and you're picking the ones you want, skewing the viewpoint. I see you have nothing about Oakland's place as the greatest concentration of earthquake deaths in the 1989 temblor whose epicenter was many miles away, nor do you have anything about a doubling of Oakland's population from those fleeing SF in 1906. You're still bent on using the provincial "seen its share" as the lead-in for assassinations, but your subsequent misuse of "it's" when you mean "its" doesn't hide the fact that you wish to put gentrification in the lede but that no other large scale economic and social movements such as American westward movement, war-industry immigration, post-war white flight, and urban blight are brought up. Your choices don't satisfy the need for a general summary of the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Crime Comparisons with San Francisco

I don't feel that comparing Oakland to San Francisco in the crime section (particularly the carjacking stats) is an accurate way of measuring Oakland's crime stats vs. those of many other cities. While trying not to sound racist by any means, the economic benefits and demographics in SF are quite different, as anyone reading the SF-wiki article will likely find out; if not from the texts, than many archived links. Putting numbers against each other based on population/per capita can work sometimes, but--in this case--not effectively. Comparing Oakland to St. Louis, Atlanta or Baltimore with such a stat would make more sense. Therefore, how about while keeping the carjacking #'s in for Oakland, compare to a different city. ?? dlikuski (talk) 7:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why "St. Louis, Atlanta, and Baltimore?" What about those cities compels you to want to compare them to Oakland? For what it's worth, the media source I added does refer to St. Louis...

"Not all cities track carjackings, making it a highly underreported crime, Topalli said. In Los Angeles, a police spokesperson said the crime is classified by officers as either an auto theft or an armed burglary, and sometimes as both. At the request of The Chronicle, Topalli compared Oakland's carjacking data only to cities that had numbers on file: New Orleans, Atlanta, Memphis, Boston and St. Louis."

"Oakland's average number of carjacking victims - 7.35 per 10,000 persons annually - also exceeds the national average of 1.7 victims per 10,000 persons, according to a survey from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002, the last year the federal government studied the crime

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/02/MNRK10VJV4.DTL#ixzz0RCCFB9QT

So, please, why those cities? Do tell. CriticalChris 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dlikuski, your comments confuse me. When you write, "While trying not to sound racist by any means," I don't get your meaning--do you want Oakland compared only to cities with comparable white/black/latino/asian demographics? If so, why? And what do "economic benefits" have to do with it--do you mean this in some flawed Marxist sense, assuming that car jackings are committed by people out of economic necessity? Comparison with San Francisco seems entirely relevant to me, since it is the nearest large city. Apostle12 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostle12, Please indent all of your comments in these threads by placing one additional colon

before

each

follow-up

comment

like this.

CriticalChris 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually no. My comment was in response to Dlikuski's comment, not to the one you posted. If I had wanted to respond to your comment I would have used two ":"s. Apostle12 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for the sake of clarity, you might consider following the style in Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation. Though you were responding to Dlikuski, you were a "subsequent commenter," after me, and thus you should have considered adding another colon to keep this talk section readable. In regards to your other comments about Dlikuski's issues..."economic necessity," "greed," call it what you want, but do you deny strong criminological research about the link between economics and crime as based on Quételet's sociological theory or even Merton's research in the areas of strain theory? Do you believe that carjackings are committed just for a night of joyriding? Or do you disbelieve the existence of chopshops that offer cash on the barrel head for people that are trying to pay their bills? ...whether those bills are for for their kid's pharmacy prescription, or for a luxurious lakefront apartment. Either way, in terms of the issue of crime, whether it's Bernie Madoff raping a schoolteacher's pension account, or your quintessential Oakland hustler getting ready for a saturday-night-sideshow, one can argue sociological factors and economics. And there's nothing Marxist about that per se. CriticalChris 19:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There must be some confusion here. The policy reads "When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to. For example, if you're replying to a statement that has 2 colons before it, your response should have 3 colons before it." Since I was responding to Dlikuski, the use of another colon would have been incorrect, as it would have implied that I was responding to you.

Of course, there is nothing necessarily Marxist about correlations between economics and crime; other theories abound. But Marx was adamant in his insistence that poverty caused crime, and one often hears that argument voiced by those who wish to downplay individual responsibility for criminal behavior, hence my comment. A complex subject, greatly influenced by sociological and cultural issues. During our Great Depression, for example, crime rates were quite low despite widespread poverty. Apostle12 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostle12, perhaps I chose wrong wording by "economic benefits". The three cities I mentioned were examples of such with populations closer to that of Oakland, than SF has. There are times, however, that I am not a big supporter of per-capita numbers between two cities (Oak and SF): they should not be used alone, when demographics are very different for both: with Oak and SF, reading demographic breakdowns, I see the difference easily. Also, SF's economy is fueled so heavily by tourism, that foot traffic is much more, therefore more potential witnesses to discourage crime there. The cities that I picked are also examples of big cities that draw varying degrees of tourism--perhaps more than Oakland, but not nearly as much as SF. Besides tourism, SF benefits economically with its "fame" as a beach city, unique attractions, etc. that Oakland and other cities do not have. So, hopefully that helps somewhat, to back my opinion. Overall, if people here feel that SF should be the city of comparison because of its proximity, I will not urge deletion-- just wanted to add my 2¢. dlikuski (talk) 9:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dlikuski. Now I understand your perspective. Apostle12 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Pardon the typos in that last post-- I just fixed a few of the grammatical ones, to make for less abrupt reading. dlikuski (talk) 9:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Shifting of Cultures

This section is currently written as follows - The city demographics have changed somewhat during recent years, as many African-Americans have sought opportunities in other Bay Area suburbs, and whites have slightly edged past blacks as the city's largest racial group.[81][87] This is a bit misleading as it relies on data which includes hispanics that self-identify as "white." Please educate me if I am misreading the data, but isn't it true that in reality so called "non hispanic whites" or "whites alone," demographically speaking, actually constitute only about 25% of Oakland's population? ...according to the most recent available census data that I found here...

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0653000&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

White alone 91,993 +/-2,899 25.4% +/-0.7 ; Black or African American alone 106,853 +/-2,598 29.5% +/-0.7

In other words, wouldn't it be misleading to infer, or suggest that "lily whites" or "anglos" or call them whatever what you want, have surpassed black residents in Oakland? CriticalChris 01:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no interest from other editors in this issue in the two months since I've raised this issue here on this talk page, I'm boldly making some changes to the body of the article. CriticalChris 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article as written is probably about as accurate as one can make it. The problem is that "hispanic" or "latino" are self-chosen terms that are used by people of all races; they are cultural, rather than racial, designations. The terms you have used above, "lily whites" and "anglos," have other problems. "Lily whites" is deprecatory, and "anglos" properly applies only to people of Anglo Saxon origin--true for many white people in the U.S., but not true for those of German, Dutch, Scandinavian, Eastern European, and Persian backgrounds. I hope you will use care in your bold attempts to address these issues.

Of course all this begs the question: "Is there such a thing as race?" That question is hotly debated among biologists, though we all know that our perception of race does have impact. Apostle12 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes; I find both of your contributions an improvement. I tweaked the refs so that they appear after punctuation, not before. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanctuary for refugees

To be encyclopedic, any information about Oakland being a sanctuary for refugees from other countries should be accompanied by statistics describing the significance, such as what percentage of refugees from some place end up in Oakland instead of other cities, or what percentage of Oakland's population is from refugees. Saying that there is a "large number" is not enough. Make it relevant specifically to Oakland, or it is a regional phenomenon. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, that is not a specific phenomenon for Oakland.EconomicTiger (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Oakland Crime Section

The Oakland crime section is filled with fear generating selective information designed to instill fear and broad brush the city of Oakland. Broad brushed quotes denigrating the city as "dangerous" from a police union representative with a vested interest as portraying the city as crime ridden and in need of keeping or adding more police for political and economic gain for the uniopn's membership is blatantly unfair and should be removed from the crime section. Also, the huge amount of content in Oakland's crime section puts Oakland's crime and potential dangers out of context with neighboring economic competitors like San Francisco which despite having many high profile crimes throughout then years has no crime section at all. By allowing this blatant unfairnes Wikipedeia allowing itself to be used as a propaganda tool for the San Francisco Convention and Visitor's Bureau and other entities which have a vested interest in portraying a competing large city across the Bay as "dangerous" while having its own crime history completely ignored. Either Wikipedia establishes a "crime" section for San Francisco or Wikipedia treats Oakland in the same manner as SF and takes down the huge Oakland crime section.

On another note Wikipedia ommitts at least three Zip codes from the bOakland zip code section. Zip codes 94618,94619,94610,and 94611 are ommitted from the Oakland Zip code section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.231.199 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Some cities have crime sections; others do not. I can assure you that the San Francisco Convention and Visitor's Bureau has nothing to do with the thousand of edits that constitute this section. All the information is appropriately sourced and relevant. Apostle12 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Apostle12; nothing in this crime section is directed or sourced from San Francisco C&V Bureau. I'm an Oakland resident and I prefer the article to have the crime section it has. Why? Because it is the truth, and perhaps to a very small degree because it may goad the city to improve its methods of dealing with the problems related to crime. The other choice—to hide Oakland's crime—is to sweep it under the rug and ignore it, to let it win the battle. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating a Fear Based Image For Oakland

The huge Oakland crime content is unfair. Why compare Oakland crime carjacking numbers to San Francisco when San Francisco has no crime section at all in Wikipedia? Why bring up carjacking in the first place? It's obvious that Wikipedia is being used to unfairly depict Oakland as a crime ridden city with a larger crime section than any other city in the United States. By contrast, Oakland's neighbor across the Bay Bridge is let off without a crime section or even a mention of crime anywhere in the entire article. Is this fair? The response from Wikipedia editors is "let San Francisco burry their heads in the sand." Well thank you very much. I'm sure San Francisco's business and tourism interests appreciate that We have editors here who have expressed a bias against Oakland and have justified their feart generating crime content by writing "Oakland is a city with pockets of safe areas where most cities have pockets of dangerous areas." This is so out of touch with Oakland's neighborhoods and land mass that this individual has no business instilling his prejudicess and anti-Oakland biases into an encyclopdedia reference article. Also, the idea that tarnishing Oakland and generating fear about Oakland on a level not seen for any other city in the United States, is somehow good for Oakland, is incredibly self-serving and intelectually dishonest. The idea that tarring Oakland will make public officials work harder should also be good for San Francisco and every other city in the nation.

The City of Oakland needs to take legal action against this unfair media campaign disgised as an ecyclopedia reference resource. There is evidence to support the findingthat the huge Oakland crime section is out of scale to any other crime section for any other city referenced in Wikipedia. The fact that a neighboring large city like San Francisco is allowed to have no crime section at all,takes Oakland's crime out of context for readers researching the Bay Area region. San Francisco has experienced many high profile crimes which would put crime in Oakland into context. The killing of a German tourist by a stray bullet near Union Square, the beating death of an 84 year old Asian man by SF thugs as he's waiting for MUNI, the throwing of a 56 year old Asian woman on to the MUNI tracks after being beaten by thugs, the epedemic of homicides and shootings at San Francisco nightclubs, the killing of a father in a driveby shooting on a San Francisco freeway with his two young sons in the car, the killing of a father as he steps away from his daughter's basketball game at halftime, the killing of a French national which was ruled a "suicide" by SF authorities as the French police are called in to rule it a homicide, the recent killing of a socialite at her Pacific Heights home by an intruder posing as a utility worker, the killing of two baseball fans near AT&T Park, the killing of a man as he seeks refuge in a downtown SF coffee shop, the over 20 homicides in downtown SF neighborhoods in 2008, the Geogia State University study which ranked SF #1 for homicides in 2005,2006,and 2007 after adjustments for demographics, the killing of Mayor George Moscone, the killing of Harvey Milk,the hidden riot in the Mission after the Giants won the World Series, etc. It's clear that San Francisco has enough crime content to generate a section at least as large as Oakland's. The question which will have to be answered is why Wikipedia based out of San Francisco allows this blatantly unfair depection of Oakland while SF is allowed to go scot free and burry its unflaterring side under the rug? Wikipedia has much to answer to and this biased Oakland crime coverege speaks to the fundamental unfairness of having certain editors serving agendas for certain entities.24.23.231.199 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you did not read my answer: I am a proud Oakland resident and I think the crime section should stand. Oakland's crime cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. There is no conspiracy from San Francisco-based editors trying to smear Oakland; it is simply part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline which specifies that significant negative information is just as worthy of inclusion as positive information.

To address your concerns that the SF article does not have a crime section, write one and add it to the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Like Binksternet I view the inclusion of a "Crime" section in Wikipedia's "Oakland" article as a positive indicator. Some cities have "Crime" sections (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis, East St. Louis, New Orleans) and others do not, based entirely on whether or not contributors choose to write same. Wikipedia's "Chicago" article has both a "Crime" section and links to an entirely separate article titled "Crime in Chicago." Cities that have focused on crime reduction--New York City is a good example--have been able to achieve dramatic positive results. Binksternet's suggestion that you write a "Crime" section for Wikipedia's "San Francisco" article is not frivolous; you and other editors are free to add such a section at any time.

The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit charitable organization originally founded in 2003 in St. Petersburg, Florida; Wikimedia moved to San Francisco in September, 2007, and it operates several online collaborative Wiki projects, including Wikipedia.

You seem to assume that Wikipedia favors San Francisco. Surely you realize that, unlike its parent non-profit, Wikipedia is based everywhere: At any time, any human being, anywhere in the world, with access to a computer and the Internet has full authority to create or change any article--excepting only a precious few that require protection from vandalism, certainly not the two articles in question. Wikipedia passed its one billionth edit mark in April, 2010. There is no central Wikipedia authority that can be called on the carpet for "allowing" a "Crime" section for Oakland and "disallowing" a "Crime" section for San Francisco.

The "Crime" section of Wikipedia's "Oakland" article dates from late 2005, which predates the decision by Wikimedia to relocate to San Francisco. Wikipedia's "San Francisco" article has never included a "Crime" section. Apostle12 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating a crime section for San Francisco

Why have you not created a crime section for San Francisco since you've created many articles for San Francisco? You've created the Bimbo's article along with MaCalister Street and others, and yet despite the huge crime content for Oakland, the idea of including mention of crime for San Francisco never occured to you? This is a blatant fear campaign being waged against the City of Oakland. passsages such as:

"Oakland continues to have a reputation among its own citizens, its own police department, and residents of the Bay Area as a dangerous place."

Before the huge Oakland crime section many references to crime also appear in the body of the article. References such as:

1)"Oakland has struggled with high unemployment, WIDESPREAD poverty,and an elevated nrate of violent crime"

2)"During the 1970's Oakland began to experience a serious problem with gangs dealing heroin and cocaine. Drug kingpin Felix Mitchel was responsible much of the violence.

3) In 1973 sniper fire brings down police helicopter.

4)In 1973 SLA assasinates Marcus Foster.

5)"During the 1980's crack cocaine became a big problem in Oakland."

6) "By the ened of the 80's more than 20% of Oakland's population was on Welfare."

7)On May 24, 1990 a pipe bomb exploded.

8)1996 Ebonics.

9) March 21, 2009 Lovelle Mixon kills four police officers.

10)Jan 1,2009 Oscar Grant shooting.

This is before readers get to the huge "crime" section.

Meanwhile in San Francisco all has been flowers and rainbows through out history and to the present.

In San Francisco there is virtually no mention of crime. For SF crime is treated with one small sentence. "The Bayview District suffers from an elevated level of violent crime." That's the San Francisco "crime section." That's it. You state that "anyone can write a crime section for San Francisco, but unfortunately, despite you having written many articles regarding San Francisco subjects, not one of those has been anything dealing with crime. The fact remains that every issue which affected Oakland historically as far as poverty and crime also affected San Francisco. You choose to inundate Oakland's section with references to crime while refusing to contribute anything negative to San Francisco's article. Why?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.231.199 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oakland article reads like a police crime blotter

Why does San Francisco's article have no mention of crime while Oakland's reads like a crime blotter? Comparing these two neighboring cities and their articles leaves no doubt that this medium is iligitimate and is used by various editors to promote San Francisco and tarnish Oakland. We have editors who contribute to both articles. For some reason crimes like the zebra killings, the zodiac killer, the Giants World Series riot in the Mission, the killing of a German tourist, and many other high profile crimes in SF are ommitted while every high profile crime throughout Oakland's history seem to be included.

Is it that Oaklanders have no pride in their city and like to put Oakland in a negative light at every opportunity? Are San Franciscans just more prideful and refuse to enter any negativity in the SF article? Or do we have San Francisco interests manipulating both the Oakland and SF articles? The glaring diffrences in articles regarding two cities seperated by five miles speaks volumes aqbout the legitimacy of this medium. Comom sense tell us that anyone writing about Oakland would be familiar with SF issues and events. The mere fact that they choose not to enter negative information in the SF article speeks volumes. These editors discredit this medium by creaqting a chamber of commerce article for SF whiole at the same time creating a crime blotter for neighboring Oakland. Shame o n you and shame on Wikipedia.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.231.199 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Then go to the Talk:San Francisco talk page, propose a crime section, and cite your sources WhisperToMe (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Much easier to say what should be done, rather than just doing it.--Chimino (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese community sources

I found: "JAPANTOWN." Oakland Landscape of Change. UC Berkeley. Retrieved on April 13, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)