This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What had been written here previously was one of the most blatantly biased and elitist things I've ever read here at Wikipedia. Having studied Regent Park myself, I can attest to the fact that it is not, in fact, one of Toronto's "most dangerous" neighbourhoods or that it is "known for its public housing projects more than anything else". In reality, it is known for its diversity and as an example of why social housing does not work, here in Canada or elsewhere. It is fairly obvious that whoever wrote this article has never even BEEN to Regent Park.
This is why I deleted the entire original text and rewrote it, in the spirit of NPOV. Remember? Neutral point of view? Somehow, I don't think writing that it's Toronto's most "dangerous" neighbourhood, without even backing up that claim with any statistical information, is presenting a neutral point of view.
Hopefully, when people decide to contribute here, they will present some form of critical thought in what they write, instead of regurgitating elitist notions of "fact" presented by the media. Darkcore 22:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Someone has previously deleted the external links and categorization of this page. I do not understand why. I have re entered the deleted items and added more content. Please do not delete the external links without any explanation. Thanks. -- 70.51.123.47 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tagged this article as having its neutrality in dispute. In particular, the section on "Social, Economical, and Political Issues in Regent Park" is full of unsubstantiated over-generalizations (the residents don't care for the environment, they abuse government social programs, they are unaware of better ways to live and behave, etc...). Some of the stuff in this section might be true (maybe TCHC doesn't have an effective recycling program -- is there anything to back that up?), but the rest is someone's POV. Skeezix1000 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the policy of Wikipedia is not to have any POV, but to include as diverse POVs as possible. We all write with our biases and contexts, and the task is to be aware of those biases and account for them.
I wrote most of the new sections. I do not have any “hidden agenda”, other than to simply state information about RP faithfully and factually as possible. I live here, that is how I gather much of the information. I also participate in community activities. In addition, I try to read widely about the RP, and seek information from others who have academically researched about RP. I have presented many positive aspects and developments about RP, and I think it is only fair to note the negative aspects as well.
Nevertheless, you are probably right. That section may indeed contain many generalizations. What I intend to say was:
If you prefer, I can substitute the word “people” with “some people”. Please respond, because I would like to get the POV tag off. -- Natkeeran 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The point is not to have as many diverse POVs as possible, but to have verifiable NPOV. Having said that, everyone has their own POV as to what the facts are -- thus the importance of sourcing the work, esp. controversial parts of an article. I wouldn't "nuke" the entire section, as suggested above, because I do think it covers very important issues. But the section would be much stronger if it could be sourced/referenced.
For example, in the first sentence, I think the article already contains back-up for the assertions respecting poverty and unemployment, but is the illiteracy claim backed-up by any of the references? I was aware that English is not the first language for much of the population, and I think that there is lots of data to back that up. There may be lots of info to back up the illiteracy statement too, but I think it's a pretty strong claim that should be sourced.
"The community is plagued by gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution." I think you said it best above that this statement is true in relation to the rest of Toronto, but I think it needs to be put in perspective. This sentence by itself conveys the impresssion that only crack addicts and prostitutes live in RP, which I suspect is not what you're saying. How do the crime stats compare to other parts of Toronto? If RP has the highest incidents of gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution, then that merits a mention in the article. My understanding is that the RP stats are not the highest, but much higher than the average. The statement just needs more facts so that it doesn't mislead the reader who is not familiar with RP.
"Abuse of government social services, apathy towards environment" -- these are unsubstantiated over-generalizations. Similarly, "ethnic segregation" needs to be explained and backed-up. I suspect that you mean that RP has a much higher foreign-born population that the rest of Toronto, but right now the wording suggests that ethnic groups are segregated within RP. If the latter is also true, then you really need to explain how that is the case, and preferably reference the claim.
The "culture of poverty" section is a frought with danger, and I admire you for tackling it. I think you need to rework the introductory paragraph, so that it is clear that you are talking about the theory behind the "culture of poverty" in general, and not suggesting that it applies to all RP residents. Then, as you have already done, you can provide examples of how the COP has manifested itself in RP. Refering to the culture of poverty article might be helpful.
As for the old furniture, beer bottles, etc., you should make clear that is an observation ("Many have observed..."), unless there are stats on this issue. I don't think that the sentence "Most people are unaware or have little interest in maintaining a clean and sustainable environment" can be salvaged merely be replacing "most" with "some". As for the recycling program, I think you need to back up the claim that either there is no comprehensive recycling program, or it is poorly implemented. Your comments above suggest that you yourself are unsure as to whether it is the former or the latter. I also note that you mentioned above: "Many residents do not have awareness of many government or other opportunities available to them". That's an interesting point that does not come across in the article, as it suggests that language and cultural barriers are often the problem, not necessarily a disinterest in participating in programs like recycling.
"People simply ignore the drug dealers, or vandals. Partly because they are afraid, but mostly out of apathy." I don't what to say on this one. I don't doubt that it is true for many people. But it probably isn't true for everyone, and should be balanced. Maybe someone else has some suggestions.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Again, they are one person's opinion. Given that you are writing on a very ambitious topic, you might find that people are constantly tagging this section as POV, simply due to the controversial and emotional subject matter. Once you've done some revisions, you may want to consider submitting the section or the entire article for peer review, so as to generate more suggestions and comment. It might help generate a consensus as to the contents of the section, and avoid future POV tags and edit wars.
Best of luck, Skeezix1000 12:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Skeezix1000 wrote:
"How do the crime stats compare to other parts of Toronto? If RP has the highest incidents of gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution, then that merits a mention in the article. My understanding is that the RP stats are not the highest, but much higher than the average. The statement just needs more facts so that it doesn't mislead the reader who is not familiar with RP.
Unfortunately, crime statistics, particularly on poverty stricken neighborhoods, are often misleading. Residents may be too scared to report, or reluctant out of a mistrust of police or a "vigilante mentality". There may be a tendency for community members to turn a "blind eye". And if so, then this should reduce the level of crime reported statistically.
The perception of "what a crime is" is not self evident. Also, drug interactions are likely to receive less attention than violent crime, and because of its central location, RP is a hub for crack and heroine transactions, that may not be included in data. Another issue is whether networking between residents involved in crime reduces friction between criminal groups (i.e., "gang wars"), which in turn may reduce the level of violent crime, but not crime in general.
As a resident of Toronto for 28 years, Regent Park has always had a reputation of being the worse area in the city. In the last decade, this reputation has been surpassed by Jane and Finch and areas of Scarborough, but the perception of Regent as "the one of worse..." remains.
A distinction could be drawn in the article between the perception of crime by outsiders and "police" or officials stats vs. the perception of Park residents and "self report data", which is often a better indicator of crime rates. I imagine there has been studies on the opinions of Park residents? - Cube43200
Personal perceptions vary widely, are unverifiable, and thus shouldn't make their way into an encyclopedia article. Objective, verifiable information based on actual crime stats is what we should be striving for. Skeezix1000 14:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the pathetic stubs which state that people in Regent park "tolerate" crime and disrespect their environment. The majority of the individuals living in Regent Park simply want to live peaceful lives without being disturbed by what is essentially an open drug market run by exceptionally violent individuals (for the most part). It is unsubstantiated rhetoric and a classic case of blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators --Grout —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.166.143 ( talk • contribs) .
This article links to Gerrard Street East, but the stretch of Gerrard Street East that borders Regent Park is nowhere near the stretch that the article is about. I propose that:
Comments? RayGates 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I'd remove the link here - has nothing to do with Regent Park. Personally, though, I'd leave the Gerrard article alone, because it is a stub, and someone might come along and expand it to cover Chinatown East, etc. If the article gets renamed, we may end up someday with articles on both Gerrard East and the India Bazaar, which would just be overkill. Skeezix1000 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The photograph is not of Regent Park nor does it look like anywhere in Toronto! Since when do we have hills? I walk past Regent Park every day and this is definitely NOT it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.80.130 ( talk) 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Every summer Regent Park residents plant community gardens with the help of RP Community Health Center, local churches, and TCHC. Some are vegetable gardens, while others are flower. -- Natkeeran 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I messed a round a bit in Adobe Illustrator and came up with a map of the area. Any comments, questions, inaccuracies or dislikes? I want to swap it for the one already on the page before the week is over. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've taken out most of the External Links to help the page comply with the Manual of Style (see WP:LINKS). If I accidently removed a couple of important ones, feel free to add them back. However, we should strive to keep the list short. I'll archive it here for reference:
=== Regent Park organizations === * Regent Park Revitalization Plan * Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Centre * Regent Park Film Festival * Regent Park School of Music * Regent Park Community Health Centre * The Pathways to Education Program * Regent Park Christian Community centre * Cabbagetown Regent Park Museum === Employment and community service agencies for Regent Park === * Dixon Hall * Woodgreen * Central Neighbourhood House * Parachute Community Employment Centre * Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Center * Yonge Street Mission === Schools in Regent Park === * Nelson Mandela Park Public School * Lord Dufferin Junior and Senior Public School * Regent Park/Duke of York Public School === Regent Park in the media === * Regent Park TV * When good design meets bad planning John Sewell on the Regent Park redevelopment plan (July 7, 2005) * What to do with Regent Park? John Sewell, January 20, 2005 * Roll of the Dice in Regent * Immigrant dreams become nightmares * Tragedy in Regent Park === Community building === * Ideas that Matter - RP Featured Issue * From ghetto to neighbourhood - Redevelopment Graphics ===Other links=== * City of Toronto: Regent Park Neighbourhood Profile * Torontoneighbourhoods.net - Detail General Info * Regent Park Civics Cricket Club * ONPHA Tenant Achievent Award for RP Resident Council * The Rap Dictionary-Regent Park-POINT BLANK * RP Comparison * Recent Shootings * Rethinking public housing – Toronto’s Regent Park – Article by Community Action Publishers * Life in Regent's Park by Bill Joynt * Livin' in by Regent Park and how to Dodge Bullets * A Clean Slate? * Neighbourhood Information Post</quote>
-- Intractable ( talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What had been written here previously was one of the most blatantly biased and elitist things I've ever read here at Wikipedia. Having studied Regent Park myself, I can attest to the fact that it is not, in fact, one of Toronto's "most dangerous" neighbourhoods or that it is "known for its public housing projects more than anything else". In reality, it is known for its diversity and as an example of why social housing does not work, here in Canada or elsewhere. It is fairly obvious that whoever wrote this article has never even BEEN to Regent Park.
This is why I deleted the entire original text and rewrote it, in the spirit of NPOV. Remember? Neutral point of view? Somehow, I don't think writing that it's Toronto's most "dangerous" neighbourhood, without even backing up that claim with any statistical information, is presenting a neutral point of view.
Hopefully, when people decide to contribute here, they will present some form of critical thought in what they write, instead of regurgitating elitist notions of "fact" presented by the media. Darkcore 22:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Someone has previously deleted the external links and categorization of this page. I do not understand why. I have re entered the deleted items and added more content. Please do not delete the external links without any explanation. Thanks. -- 70.51.123.47 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tagged this article as having its neutrality in dispute. In particular, the section on "Social, Economical, and Political Issues in Regent Park" is full of unsubstantiated over-generalizations (the residents don't care for the environment, they abuse government social programs, they are unaware of better ways to live and behave, etc...). Some of the stuff in this section might be true (maybe TCHC doesn't have an effective recycling program -- is there anything to back that up?), but the rest is someone's POV. Skeezix1000 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the policy of Wikipedia is not to have any POV, but to include as diverse POVs as possible. We all write with our biases and contexts, and the task is to be aware of those biases and account for them.
I wrote most of the new sections. I do not have any “hidden agenda”, other than to simply state information about RP faithfully and factually as possible. I live here, that is how I gather much of the information. I also participate in community activities. In addition, I try to read widely about the RP, and seek information from others who have academically researched about RP. I have presented many positive aspects and developments about RP, and I think it is only fair to note the negative aspects as well.
Nevertheless, you are probably right. That section may indeed contain many generalizations. What I intend to say was:
If you prefer, I can substitute the word “people” with “some people”. Please respond, because I would like to get the POV tag off. -- Natkeeran 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The point is not to have as many diverse POVs as possible, but to have verifiable NPOV. Having said that, everyone has their own POV as to what the facts are -- thus the importance of sourcing the work, esp. controversial parts of an article. I wouldn't "nuke" the entire section, as suggested above, because I do think it covers very important issues. But the section would be much stronger if it could be sourced/referenced.
For example, in the first sentence, I think the article already contains back-up for the assertions respecting poverty and unemployment, but is the illiteracy claim backed-up by any of the references? I was aware that English is not the first language for much of the population, and I think that there is lots of data to back that up. There may be lots of info to back up the illiteracy statement too, but I think it's a pretty strong claim that should be sourced.
"The community is plagued by gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution." I think you said it best above that this statement is true in relation to the rest of Toronto, but I think it needs to be put in perspective. This sentence by itself conveys the impresssion that only crack addicts and prostitutes live in RP, which I suspect is not what you're saying. How do the crime stats compare to other parts of Toronto? If RP has the highest incidents of gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution, then that merits a mention in the article. My understanding is that the RP stats are not the highest, but much higher than the average. The statement just needs more facts so that it doesn't mislead the reader who is not familiar with RP.
"Abuse of government social services, apathy towards environment" -- these are unsubstantiated over-generalizations. Similarly, "ethnic segregation" needs to be explained and backed-up. I suspect that you mean that RP has a much higher foreign-born population that the rest of Toronto, but right now the wording suggests that ethnic groups are segregated within RP. If the latter is also true, then you really need to explain how that is the case, and preferably reference the claim.
The "culture of poverty" section is a frought with danger, and I admire you for tackling it. I think you need to rework the introductory paragraph, so that it is clear that you are talking about the theory behind the "culture of poverty" in general, and not suggesting that it applies to all RP residents. Then, as you have already done, you can provide examples of how the COP has manifested itself in RP. Refering to the culture of poverty article might be helpful.
As for the old furniture, beer bottles, etc., you should make clear that is an observation ("Many have observed..."), unless there are stats on this issue. I don't think that the sentence "Most people are unaware or have little interest in maintaining a clean and sustainable environment" can be salvaged merely be replacing "most" with "some". As for the recycling program, I think you need to back up the claim that either there is no comprehensive recycling program, or it is poorly implemented. Your comments above suggest that you yourself are unsure as to whether it is the former or the latter. I also note that you mentioned above: "Many residents do not have awareness of many government or other opportunities available to them". That's an interesting point that does not come across in the article, as it suggests that language and cultural barriers are often the problem, not necessarily a disinterest in participating in programs like recycling.
"People simply ignore the drug dealers, or vandals. Partly because they are afraid, but mostly out of apathy." I don't what to say on this one. I don't doubt that it is true for many people. But it probably isn't true for everyone, and should be balanced. Maybe someone else has some suggestions.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Again, they are one person's opinion. Given that you are writing on a very ambitious topic, you might find that people are constantly tagging this section as POV, simply due to the controversial and emotional subject matter. Once you've done some revisions, you may want to consider submitting the section or the entire article for peer review, so as to generate more suggestions and comment. It might help generate a consensus as to the contents of the section, and avoid future POV tags and edit wars.
Best of luck, Skeezix1000 12:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Skeezix1000 wrote:
"How do the crime stats compare to other parts of Toronto? If RP has the highest incidents of gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution, then that merits a mention in the article. My understanding is that the RP stats are not the highest, but much higher than the average. The statement just needs more facts so that it doesn't mislead the reader who is not familiar with RP.
Unfortunately, crime statistics, particularly on poverty stricken neighborhoods, are often misleading. Residents may be too scared to report, or reluctant out of a mistrust of police or a "vigilante mentality". There may be a tendency for community members to turn a "blind eye". And if so, then this should reduce the level of crime reported statistically.
The perception of "what a crime is" is not self evident. Also, drug interactions are likely to receive less attention than violent crime, and because of its central location, RP is a hub for crack and heroine transactions, that may not be included in data. Another issue is whether networking between residents involved in crime reduces friction between criminal groups (i.e., "gang wars"), which in turn may reduce the level of violent crime, but not crime in general.
As a resident of Toronto for 28 years, Regent Park has always had a reputation of being the worse area in the city. In the last decade, this reputation has been surpassed by Jane and Finch and areas of Scarborough, but the perception of Regent as "the one of worse..." remains.
A distinction could be drawn in the article between the perception of crime by outsiders and "police" or officials stats vs. the perception of Park residents and "self report data", which is often a better indicator of crime rates. I imagine there has been studies on the opinions of Park residents? - Cube43200
Personal perceptions vary widely, are unverifiable, and thus shouldn't make their way into an encyclopedia article. Objective, verifiable information based on actual crime stats is what we should be striving for. Skeezix1000 14:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the pathetic stubs which state that people in Regent park "tolerate" crime and disrespect their environment. The majority of the individuals living in Regent Park simply want to live peaceful lives without being disturbed by what is essentially an open drug market run by exceptionally violent individuals (for the most part). It is unsubstantiated rhetoric and a classic case of blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators --Grout —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.166.143 ( talk • contribs) .
This article links to Gerrard Street East, but the stretch of Gerrard Street East that borders Regent Park is nowhere near the stretch that the article is about. I propose that:
Comments? RayGates 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I'd remove the link here - has nothing to do with Regent Park. Personally, though, I'd leave the Gerrard article alone, because it is a stub, and someone might come along and expand it to cover Chinatown East, etc. If the article gets renamed, we may end up someday with articles on both Gerrard East and the India Bazaar, which would just be overkill. Skeezix1000 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The photograph is not of Regent Park nor does it look like anywhere in Toronto! Since when do we have hills? I walk past Regent Park every day and this is definitely NOT it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.80.130 ( talk) 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Every summer Regent Park residents plant community gardens with the help of RP Community Health Center, local churches, and TCHC. Some are vegetable gardens, while others are flower. -- Natkeeran 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I messed a round a bit in Adobe Illustrator and came up with a map of the area. Any comments, questions, inaccuracies or dislikes? I want to swap it for the one already on the page before the week is over. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've taken out most of the External Links to help the page comply with the Manual of Style (see WP:LINKS). If I accidently removed a couple of important ones, feel free to add them back. However, we should strive to keep the list short. I'll archive it here for reference:
=== Regent Park organizations === * Regent Park Revitalization Plan * Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Centre * Regent Park Film Festival * Regent Park School of Music * Regent Park Community Health Centre * The Pathways to Education Program * Regent Park Christian Community centre * Cabbagetown Regent Park Museum === Employment and community service agencies for Regent Park === * Dixon Hall * Woodgreen * Central Neighbourhood House * Parachute Community Employment Centre * Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Center * Yonge Street Mission === Schools in Regent Park === * Nelson Mandela Park Public School * Lord Dufferin Junior and Senior Public School * Regent Park/Duke of York Public School === Regent Park in the media === * Regent Park TV * When good design meets bad planning John Sewell on the Regent Park redevelopment plan (July 7, 2005) * What to do with Regent Park? John Sewell, January 20, 2005 * Roll of the Dice in Regent * Immigrant dreams become nightmares * Tragedy in Regent Park === Community building === * Ideas that Matter - RP Featured Issue * From ghetto to neighbourhood - Redevelopment Graphics ===Other links=== * City of Toronto: Regent Park Neighbourhood Profile * Torontoneighbourhoods.net - Detail General Info * Regent Park Civics Cricket Club * ONPHA Tenant Achievent Award for RP Resident Council * The Rap Dictionary-Regent Park-POINT BLANK * RP Comparison * Recent Shootings * Rethinking public housing – Toronto’s Regent Park – Article by Community Action Publishers * Life in Regent's Park by Bill Joynt * Livin' in by Regent Park and how to Dodge Bullets * A Clean Slate? * Neighbourhood Information Post</quote>
-- Intractable ( talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)