Talk:Oakland, California

Archives
Archive 1

Demographic data needs updating

The U.S. Census Bureau 2006 estimates show estimates show 34.1 percent White 30.3 percent African American, 0.9 percent Native American, 15.6 percent Asian American, 0.7 percent Pacific Islander, 14.6 percent from other races, and 3.8 percent from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 25.9 percent of the population.

North Oakland neighborhood split

There are several ways to define neighborhoods in Oakland. Realtors use maps that simplify (see Metro Rent's map) and gloss over certain hard-sell areas; police safety and crime stats maps use simplify as well but not in the same way (see Urban Strategies 2005 homicides map) while the city planning office uses maps with smaller areas named and defined such as the one developed by Fern Tiger Associates in 1982, available here, which unexpectedly calls the northeastern hill section of Oakland "NorthWest Hills". The way this article divides neighborhoods doesn't conform to any of the above methods; I wonder how the division was reached for this article. North Oakland (as defined here) includes the hills east of Piedmont. Most would call that Claremont/Montclair or Northeast Hills, and all would agree that reported violent crime and racial composition differ dramatically between the hilly sections and the flatter sections. I propose to split North Oakland neighborhood into at least two sections: North Oakland and Northeast Oakland. Such a split would affect the North Oakland, Oakland, California article, too. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Northeast Oakland". The list should have the hills as a separate entity from North Oakland, East Oakland, Downtown/Lake Merritt, West Oakland. The north hills have much more in common with the south hills than either do with their respective flatland areas. Argyriou (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Oaklanders don't use the phrases "Northeast Hills" or Northeast Oakland" in normal conversation, though those phrases exist in documents about crime statistics and home sales. Perhaps you would agree to "Oakland Hills" as the other neighborhood. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Oakland Hills, Oakland, California page is up. Other pages have been/still need adjusting. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no "Oakland Hills" either, apart from the common misuse of the name with respect to a geologic feature. The districts that overlap the hills are already named. For the most part, the really hilly section of Oakland encompasses Montclair. I don't understand why the articles on these districts aren't sufficient. Why is it necessary to concoct intermediate articles grouping them together? And if the relevant dichotomy is "hills v. flatlands", why not an "Oakland Flatlands" article? It all seems excessive, repetitive, and unnecessary. The groupings here in this article ought to be the limit. Tmangray (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem lies in the designation of the larger parts of Oakland as "neighborhoods" when they are actually simply geographic sections (hence the use of modifiers such as "East", "West", "North", etc.), except possibly in the case of West Oakland. Even most of the neighborhoods are in practice referred to as "districts", as in "Montclair District" or "Fruitvale District". I don't know of any historically-named part of Oakland that is known as a "neighborhood", but perhaps there are some. Tmangray (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We must be careful not to concoct ahistorical names for parts of Oakland, simply because we wish to group neighborhoods by geography. If we must group, then we must also make sure to notify the reader that our grouping names are not (unless they are) historic local names in common usage. For example, obviously, "Northeast Hills" is not a common usage. Nonetheless, with the simple addition of the word "section" or "area" (and no capitalization if used in the text since it is not a proper name) it might be just fine as a grouping header on this page. It would not, however, merit a separate article. Tmangray (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chauncey_Wendell_Bailey

Why are Chauncey Wendell Bailey & your_Black_Muslim_Bakery not mentioned in the articles of Oakland, Santa_Barbara,_California?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames revisited

I propose that we remove the entire "nicknames" section and any mention of them in the article.

To those who protest that this is too severe an excision of material, I'd like to point out that the current paragraph, consisting of 3 sentences, has 4 "citation needed" tags and no references whatsoever. This makes that part of the article an eyesore and a weak spot. Imagine coming across this article on some other site, with its content scraped from Wikipedia, and seeing all those red flags in the text.

To paraphrase another aphorism, if you can't say anything notable and verifiable about something, better to say nothing at all. There has been plenty of time for editors to supply valid references for these statements. The article can live without this bit of trivia. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The nicknames are absurd, I live in Oakland and I've never heard of those nicknames before. Verifiability has not been made at all, except for maybe that last sentence in the section, so the whole section can justifiably be deleted. WinterSpw (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As absurd as the nicknames are, it is completely moot how often you may have personally heard them. Unless you're a cultural anthropologist or an active member of the medicinal Cannabis community, it seems you may have missed the hundreds of magazine and bus stop ads promoting dispensaries with these names that you'd unavoidably see daily if you really live in Oakland(I work there and do see them almost daily). Many people from far beyond Oakland are also well aware of them.

But another part of the wiki entry is maybe further off,"Oakland is a part of the Bay Area consisting of the numerous counties that share a border on the bay, including the three largest cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, which is sometimes referred to as the "Yay Area." [edit]

As it is stated, this intentionally avoids mention that "yay" has been one of the most common names for cocaine from the late '60's to the present. Any young or simply drug ignorant reader who heard this, may assume this might actually mean "yay area", as in a fun place to visit, though by highscool they'll all know what it really means. It seems the author of this section is hoping to gloss over that the nickname stems from the atypically high cocaine use in SF and the East Bay in relation to similar urban areas. The South bay and North bay are far more well known for meth, which is even more unfortunate, but these areas are not considered to be in the "yay area" by anyone who would ever actually use that phrase, which as clearly slang, not admissable source material. I'll check back in a few weeks to see if there is any debate to be had, if not I'll go ahead and change it accordingly.KVND 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Notable people from Oakland vs. List of people from Oakland, California

The section in the main article, "Notable People from Oakland," this has only one person listed. Isn't it a bit redundant as there is already a more inclusive list linked at the bottom?Sausagebucket (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole section needed to go, so I deleted it. There's no use in having some kind of short version of the list placed within the city article. It would soon be the source of many additions, reversions and friction, and would tend to grow nearly as large as the List of people from Oakland, California. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

4th most beautiful city

WHy did they say that Oakland is the 4th most beautiful city in the USA? I'm am going to remove it, but first i will ask if I should or not. SO should I? Sidobagga (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely POV! Good catch. Eeblet (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FBI investigates city bureaucracy

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

Oaksterdam University

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

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

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

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

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

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