Talk:Regent Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian communities
This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

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)

Contents

[edit] Neutrality in dispute

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)

[edit] Neutrality in dispute - A Response

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:

  • On average, compared to rest of Toronto, the poverty and social ills are concentrated in RP. Everyone is aware of this problem.
  • The crime, gang violence, and drug trade is more prevalent in RP than most other Toronto communities.
  • If you visited RP, you can note that the neighborhood is littered with used up furniture, and vandalized properties. (That is not a generalization, that is plain observation.)
  • TCHC is yet to install a comprehensive Recycle program. Most residents throw the “wet garbage” and most other garbage into one lumped dump. They have a paper recycling program, but that’s about it. Even if they do have a comprehensive program, it is not reaching the residents.
  • Many residents do not have awareness of many government or other opportunities available to them. If you work with the residents, you will soon come to recognize this statement.
  • Similarly, most of other statements can be substantiated.

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)

    • I'd just nuke the entire section. It's very POV. Ethnic segregation? Nfitz 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Hi. I tagged the article originally, because this section was full of so many unsubstantiated claims, and I did not want to go ahead and start editing without first having the opportunity for people to comment (esp. given that this talk page indicates that there have been past disputes over the content of this article). The comments below are just my suggestions -- I am no more correct on these points than anyone else. Obviously you may disagree with what I have to say.

        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)

Thank you for a thoughtful and detail response. I was perhaps too eager to expand the content that I did not put sufficient effort into crafting verifiable content. I will take your input, and try to rewrite the sections to be more objective. As you noted, some statements that are self evident to me come across as very opinionated to a person not familiar with RP. Also, as you noted the items discussed are important for understanding RP, thus I would not agree to “nuke” the section as suggested by Nfitz. It will take some time for me to rewrite the section. If you want you can move that section to the discussion page until then. Or, you can modify the sections as you see fit, and I can add or modify it later. Once again, thanks for the feedback. --Natkeeran 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Rewriting is better than nuking! It's certainly a challenging section to write! Good luck Nfitz 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a challenging section to write, so I second Nfitz's comments. I don't think that you need to remove the section, though, as it is tagged. If you keep the tagged section in the article, it alerts other readers that they may also want to contribute to the discussion on the talk page, and they may have facts and sources that would be of help. Skeezix1000 22:09, 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

The article surely needs a cleanup - things like why people tolerate drug dealers in their neighbourhoods are far more complicated. But it's silly to deny that Regent Park is regarded as one of the most dangerous neighbourhoods in Toronto. I'd be hard pressed to name more than 2 or 3 areas that are "popularly" considered more dangerous. WilyD 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem. Everyone's idea of what is "popularly" considered the most dangerous neighbourhood is different. Living downtown, I would walk through Regent Park alone at night much sooner than I ever would in parts of Scarborough and North York. Heck, even in terms of dangerous places downtown, I'd be far more concerned about being in the Moss Park area to the west of Regent Park than I would about being in Regent Park itself. Based on media reports these past few years, I could easily think of half a dozen places in Toronto where far more gang shootings and drug busts have taken place, none of them anywhere near Regent Park. Based on the Boxing Day shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of Torontonians might think of Yonge & Dundas as the most dangerous spot in the city (when it is anything but).

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)

The popular perception of an area is important to an encyclopedia - especially areas that may have strong reputations - but I see your point about the variations in personal perceptions. I guess best would be some sort of survey data - I'm skeptical that it can be found (but I'll try to take a look). Beyond that - hmm. But actual crime data and perception are different things - and both belong in an encyclopedia (where available). WilyD 16:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with stating that the popular/media perception of Regent Park as an area of high levels of criminal activity, but given the lack of concrete evidence, it must be stated that it's only a perception and not necessarily a fact. That segment as it is presented now is riddled with personal assumptions, emotions and not objective information, and should be seriously edited or entirely rewritten. --AlvinofDiaspar 18:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with popular perception being described in the article, as long as it is widely accepted and it's clear that it is not fact. I do have a problem with personal perceptions making their way into an article, when there isn't necessarily any consensus that they accord with clear popular perceptions. I have no doubt that it would be fair to include a statement along the lines "Regent Park is commonly perceived as an area with high levels of criminal activity" in the article. I would be concerned with a statement along the lines of "Regent Park is considered [the/one of the] most dangerous neighbourhood in Toronto", because I think it's debatable whether or not that is true. Skeezix1000 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well put! That's an excellent way of getting the issue of safety and crime across without having to resort to hyperbole and assumptions. --AlvinofDiaspar 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You're in fact 100% right about this. I've looked (so far in vain) for some at least vaguely official source to this regard. Until we can get something like that, we should probly nix the mentions on the main page. WilyD 19:16, 6 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) .

[edit] Gerrard Street East

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:

  1. we remove the link to the 'Gerrard Street East' article and
  2. the Gerrard Street East article be renamed 'Gerrard Street East (Little India)', since it does not describe the whole street.

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)

If we expand the Gerrard Street East article, we can make the association with Regent Park and we don't need to remove that link after all. I will put it on my 'To Do' list. RayGates 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it. RayGates 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[edit] RP Community Groups

[edit] Companies involved in Regent Park

  • Restoration Envronmental Contractors - REC [1] - Doing the Demolition for Phase 1
  • Developer Phase 1

[edit] Not for Profits, Foundations NGOs etc.

[edit] Regent Park Community Gardens

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)

[edit] Useful Etc Links

[edit] RP Related Studies

  • THROUGH THE EYES OF RESIDENTS, AND THE LENS OF MEDIA: PERSPECTIVES ON THE REGENT PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT [3]
  • Food, Foodways and Immigrant Experience [4]


[edit] Festivals and Celeberations in RP

  • Sunday in the Park
  • RP Storytelling Festival
  • RP Filmfestival
  • Puungavanam (Tamil:பூங்காவனம்) - Annual Tamil Cultural Event

[edit] Issues that Need Attention

  • Garbage dump in the middle of the neighborhood
  • Garbage collection and recycling
  • Where is the TCHC security office? Hidden away!
  • Security
  • Residents responsibilities
  • Responsible use of the commons
  • Communication gap
  • Transparency, accountability

[edit] Churches in RP

[edit] RP Recreational Facilities

  • Regent Park Community Recreation Centre
  • RP North Artificial Ice Rink
  • RP South Artificial Ice Rink

[edit] RP Small Business

  • Regent Park Fish & Chips [6]

[edit] Research Tips and Sources

  • TPL-Parliment Branch - has a special local history collection about RP
  • Toronto City Archives - Online http://www.toronto.ca/archives/photographs/index.htm
  • Public Internet - try alternative search engines
  • Social Science Journals - University databases
  • Contact former scholars and social activists
  • RPNI

[edit] Business Development Programs??