Talk:Regent Park

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)

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)

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)

Social, Economical, and Political Issues in Regent Park

Regent park is a community where poverty, illiteracy, unemployment are concentrated. The community is plagued by gang violence, drug abuse, and prostitution. Abuse of government social services, apathy towards environment, and ethnic segregation prevail in Regent Park. Despite many positive developments these issues remain.

Police and Residents Relations

As late as 2001 the relation between some residents and police was confrontational[1]. The Toronto Police Service – 51 Division[2] is responsible for the community. It was once located in the community at 30 Regent Street, and it has now moved to near by 51 Parliament Street.

Regent Park is one of the high crime prone area, and police face tremendous challenges in providing protection and security to the community. Recently, the community and police relations have greatly improved. Police have adopted a community oriented, preventive, and collaborate approach, and indicate that they are more effective in providing security to the community.

Culture of Poverty

Regent Park has been described as a community where the “culture of poverty” prevents people from improving themselves. People behave the way they do because that is how they are accustomed to or because they are not aware of the better alternatives available to them. In Regent Park the “culture of poverty” exhibits it self in the following manners:

Lack of concern for the environment:

Broken beer bottles, discarded old appliances, and examples of vandalism are found throughout the neighbourhood. Most people are unaware or have little interest in maintaining a clean and sustainable environment. The TCHC has serious flaws in its waste management strategy. For instance, Regent Park units do not have a comprehensive recycling program.

Toleration of crime and violence:

People simply ignore the drug dealers, or vandals. Partly because they are afraid, but mostly out of apathy.