Talk:Regent Park

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Rewriting is better than nuking! It's certainly a challenging section to write!  Good luck  Nfitz 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality in dispute

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Rewriting is better than nuking! It's certainly a challenging section to write!  Good luck  Nfitz 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality in dispute - A Response 

message: 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:
#we remove the link to the 'Gerrard Street East' article and
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Someone beat me to it. RayGates 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hate to burst your bubble, but if you click on the pic and zoom in you can clearly see at TTC CLRV trundling down Dundas street. The picture file details state the picture was taken from the roof of the Merchandise Building (the building on the filling the whole block bordered by Dundas(S), Gould(N), Dalhousie(W), Mutual(E)). The picture also depects the middle of the first phase of the revitalization construction (the towers being built left/centre frame, are the towers now completed at the North East corner of Parliament and Dundas) eja2k 23:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerrard Street East

message: === RP Community Groups ===
* Regent’s Park Somali Welfare Group
* 614 Regent Park http://www.614network.com/regentpark/index.html
=== Companies involved in Regent Park ===
* Restoration Envronmental Contractors - REC  - Doing the Demolition for Phase 1
* Developer Phase 1
* 
=== Not for Profits, Foundations NGOs etc.===
* http://www.torontoartscape.on.ca/ Feasibility Study - RP Arts Centre
=== 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)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regent Park Community Gardens 

message: 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)
replies: text: Great map.  A significant improvement over the existing one.  I notice one typo (it's Gerrard), and I think I'd give Gerrard the same treatment as Queen, Dundas, Parliament and River, since it forms the northern boundary.  But those are just quibbles.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I missed that spelling error, thanks for letting me know. As for the emphasis on some streets over others, I just went by what was highlighted in yellow on Google Maps. How's it now? Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's good so why isn't it being used? 65.93.32.91 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links