Talk:Neighbourhoods in Regina, Saskatchewan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Local Issues[edit]

Why can we not have a local issues section on the main page ?--206.163.235.114 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is redundant and should be moved to the main page and included under local issues. It make more sense to have it in that category, as a neighbourhoods section would be limited, mostly stats, and there is not much difference between Uni Park and Rochdale.I ask that you stop removing these remarks. I understand that they don't jive with your "glass is 1/2 full" attitidue but try to have an open mind.--Mayor Quimby 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much difference between University park and Rochdale? The two areas are at completely different ends of the city! You should try and keep an open mind as well. It's pretty obvious that you have a glass half empty attitude. --Reginaguy 06:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I came across this page [1], which discusses demographical information for each neighbourhood. Statistical information is fine, but hopefully there are other sources that provide more substance (perhaps unique characteristics of a neighbourhood, history, amenities, etc). Does anyone know of any? Perhaps neighbourhood association websites? --Kmsiever 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kmsiever! I tried to find neighbourhood information for but it seems the Albert Park and Lakeview community association websites don't have a lot of the information for which we are looking. I didn't look for Cathedral Area yet -- intend to look again before the weekend -- I'll let you know. --Mumun 無文 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked through the Lakeview site yesterday and didn't find anything worthwhile either. --Kmsiever 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you guys that this section is redundant and should be converted to a local issues section on the main page but your self serving attitudes prevented you from seeing this fact. There is no reason to have a neighbourhoods section. I hope in the future you show the intelligence to follow my suggestions. I also resent be called a troll or being limped in with an anon ip address, unless you have proof of the fact then please refrain from either form of name calling.--Mayor Quimby 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found something on the Cathedral Area here. The topic of the webpage is a local association, but the first few sentences describe the neighbourhood itself. --Mumun 無文 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! I used it to write up a section. Thanks. --Kmsiever 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?[edit]

What is Uni Park and what is Rochdale? Are those neighbourhoods in Regina? I think not. I second (or third?) the notion that the new article on Regina Neighbourhoods be expanded to include information other neighbourhoods. There are neighbourhoods worthy of a few words. Then that article should be summarised in a short paragraph which should appear as a section in the Regina, Saskatchewan article (as per Friesguy on the other talk page). This way the NC section is not 'buried away from site'. Posted the same message on the other article. -- Mumun 無文 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had first hand knowledge of Regina you would know that those are areas of town. I feel your lack of knowledge should disqualify you from editting this article. That and your continued wiki-terrorism.--Mayor Quimby 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you people insist on filling this article with lies?[edit]

"The murder rate increased by 33% in this 153-block area containing approximately 10,500 people between November 2005 and November 2006. Other violent crimes have also increased: third degree assault (20%), robberies (35%), kidnapping (25%), arson (50%)." How many times must I say, this is FALSE! It's misleading and untrue!! Are you people not listening? Or are you purposely trying to vandalise the page? Those stats are for the entire city of Regina, not just for that "153-block area". --Reginaguy 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you people claim that only posting negative stats, and using percent increases when the murder rate only went up by two %^$%#^ing people is to offset optimistic bias, but you vandals are doing the exact same thing! You're creating an pessimistic bias! This is rediculous, the article isn't your personal soap box, stick to unbiased facts --Reginaguy 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, that part about the murder rate increasing due to the police caring less about 'crimes against the person' is a total joke.. How can you prove a statement like that? Who would actually believe that police care more about a stolen car than a murder victim? Get real.. And even if that was the case, how can you prove that is the reason for the increase? Mayor Quimby, I assume you're the same person that trolls the Regina section at skyscraperpage.com, please stick to unbiased information --Reginaguy 06:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really get worked up by the truth. As for ranks of crime fighting by RPS, its on their website under priorities. Give it a read,Booster guy. --Mayor Quimby 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the police report previously cited that says anything about a national trend, nor is thee any comparative data for Nov 2005 and Nov 2006. In fact there is no data whatsoever comparing anything from 2005 with 2006. --Kmsiever 14:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone, I'll add the stats can national trends when time permits. The crime stats are based on yearly trends and do show percentage changes year over year. So just go deal with Mormon and Lethbridge stuff, things you seem to undertsnd, You don't understand this.

--Mayor Quimby 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to include the source now, then don't include the claim. The crime states in the currently cited source do not show what you claim they show. There is no data comparing Nov 2005 and Nov 2006. If there is, please point out which page and exact data before reverting. Otherwise you are making unverified claims. --Kmsiever 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little thing called common knowledge. Even though you seem to lack any. Leave it alone your wiki-terrorism is getting old and is not open minded. Like I said deal with your other anal retentive articles, wacko !--Mayor Quimby 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOURCE. --Kmsiever 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the mayor Quimby seems to want to be remembered as a troll, I think we should just let him be as he is with his angry and rude attitude and let him fade into the sunset.Friesguy 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Quimby, don't tell me I get worked up by the truth, because you don't seem to know anything about it. Read my post. I clearly stated why the numbers were not the truth. It is not true that murder increased by 33% in that 153 block area. Murder increased by 33% (a measly two murders BTW) for the entire city of Regina, that's why I removed it, it was misleading and false. How can you claim I have a booster agenda? Did you notice how i kept the parts about North central having a relatively high crime rate? And the part about it being labled "Canada's Worst Neighbourhood" by Macleans? I left those parts in because they're true. I removed the figures because they were false and misleading, and I removed your classy bit of input for the same reason. Get over yourself. --Reginaguy 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also clearly explained why you can't say the higher murder rate is due to "crimes against the person" being lower priority. But maybe I have to state the reasons in an easy to read list so you can understand.
1) First of all, overall, "crimes against the person" are down significantly, so your point is moot.
2) You can't prove that the higher murder rate is directly related the priority ranking
3) Just because the police are prioritizing other crimes doesn't mean they're "sidelining" murder investigations
4) Ask yourself, why does anyone get murdered in Regina? It's almost always related to drugs or gangs, which are on the police's top priorities. So, in a sense, they are prioritizing "crimes against the person". They could put "Murder" as their top priority to make you happy, but what would that mean? How exactly do you prevent murder without going after its causes. Saying murder is the top priority would be an empty gesture. The police know what they're doing.

There, so think before you post from now on. We already proved you wrong countless times on skyscraperpage.com, so you decided you'd come here to try and convince a fresh group of people? Why do you have to be so grumpy? Maybe you should stick to editing articles you know something about, perhaps you can contribute to the pessimist article. --Reginaguy 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 206.163.235.114 / Mayor Quimby !! No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. --Mumun 無文 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mayor Quimby (or anonIP person) is also trying to stop any changes on the Pat Fiacco article. An attempt to block anyone from editing was attempted by mayor quimby but rejected by a wiki admin. It seems the only opinion that matters is his with no changes allowed. Also as he criticizes kmseiver for being from Lethbridge while it interesting that one of his anon ips is listed as being from Saskatoon "so its do as I say not as I do?" Friesguy 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reginaguy- I edited the part so that it was clear that the crime rate increased in the city as a whole and that a high percentage took place in NC. As for the name calling and accusations of being some else or a troll or a sock puppet, it would be appreciated if the name calling was halted, it is childish. As per admin request please discuss any revert or edits prior to altering the article.--Mayor Quimby 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a small amount of editing and removed the statement that fiacco met with first nations leaders only twice in the 6 years of service, there is no proof of statement. Friesguy 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts and sources[edit]

I have sourced some disputed points from history and reverted some of the stats. I believe they are important to the article. If you wish to change any parts. Please discuss, I am willing to alter portions but whole sale reverts are not necessary.Thank you--206.163.235.114 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed it. A hundred times. See above, and on the Regina talk page. But you already know this. We've been going in circles for two months on this. --Kmsiever 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used primary sources, all the information is relevant to the article. What is your problem ?--206.163.235.114 06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Introduction is vague or missing"[edit]

Well, it wasn't missing till Mr or Ms 24.71.100.216 deleted it on the basis that it was "vague or missing." Improvements are always appropriate; it is difficult to see how simply deleting this introduction makes it less "vague or missing." One wonders what the issue is. Are we getting into the old heave-ho about wanting a sociological excursion into the causes of the social problems in the North-Central precinct? If there are published sources for such discussion, then by all means, why not. And Mr or Ms 24.71.100.216 should certainly feel free to go ahead and add such material. Otherwise surely no, and in the meantime, peremptorily deleting an innocuous introduction is surely vandalism. Masalai 06:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two commentaries for tone problems: "pleasant but undistinguished" and "whether for good or ill". –Pomte 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? North-Central is hardly distinguished for good. My point in formulating that sentence was to identify the neighbourhoods of Regina that are noteworthy. The others are notable for their old-money poshness. (And, in answer to some other editor's query, of course there are other notable neighbourhoods in Regina than these somewhat arbitrarily designated five. But they are standard issue residential housing developments of the latter half of the 20th century, pleasant but, yes, undistinguished, and surely in no way dissimilar to comparable residential housing developments in any other North American city. By all means, if this editor can identify other neighbourhoods by way of noteworthiness, he or she should go ahead and formulate a further section in the article.) How would you describe the noteworthiness of North-Central?Masalai 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While what you may be correct, descriptive claims such as "pleasant" and "undistinguished" would need to be verifiable with reliable sources. Residents anywhere can think their neighbourhood is pleasant, but do the majority find them pleasant, and why? "Undistinguished" has some negative connotations and can be replaced by a more thorough explanation like you gave, though you're free to object to this. Anyway, someone reading an article called Regina neighbourhoods would likely expect more information about those neighbourhoods in general, in addition to detail about the more notable ones. Just one or two more sentences will do, I think. What you said about them being standard issue residential housing developments.
So there are not exactly 5 distinctive neighbourhoods, but there could potentially be more listed? It should be made clear in the introduction that the currently listed 5 are arbitrary. –Pomte 05:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. "Pleasant but undistinguished" is hardly contentious or requiring documentation. The point is that there are two neighbourhoods of note, neither distinguished for any good reason; the rest of the city's residential areas are precisely "pleasant but undistinguished" (ie for good or ill). The rest of the article is largely bumf, inserted by way of balancing the discussion of the historically (Germantown) and contemporaneously (North-Central) infelicitous precincts. Masalai 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is "undistinguished" at all pejorative, as you seem to think. In the context it merely indicates that there is nothing ill to be said of the other Regina neighbourhoods.Masalai 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crime Stats"[edit]

The crime stats in the north central portion of this article all directly from the Regina Police Service and are relevant to this article, as the #1 issue or charteristic of the neighbourhood is the poverty and crime. One revert stated the stats were incorrect, what basis do you have for your ascertaination and can you link to it ? Otherwise, please leave the stats, as they are from a reliable source.--207.81.56.49 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in the above message, you appear attribute statistics that refer to the overall city crime rate. I think the current text that you are referring to is not clear enough, and since the stats refer to the entire city, why are they in the North Central section? Also, the link to the RPS that is given as a source does not open a webpage. Mumun 無文 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest instead of deleting them, you might want to clarify the stats or find ones you deem more appropriate. This may be more constructive then deletion and possibly causing a revert war. I await your reverting the stats in North Central until such time that you can prove your claim or find alternate stats.--207.81.56.49 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I appreciate your offer. I'll post the stats here a little later and maybe we can get the help of other editors -- owver we've been through this before. My other worry is that with murder, we are talking about small numbers in the first place. Secondly, when the murder rate goes up from one year to the next, say from 9 murders to 10 murders, presenting this as a percent statistic is very misleading and/or false. Mumun 無文 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not false because that is the percentage. As for misleading, that is a personal/subjective POV. If it bothers you so much feel free to add in the numbers in the brackets with percentage, but make sure to do it for all the crime areas. A fact is a fact and if you feel it is misleading do not erase it but add a sentence about it. I have read the history and although Mayor Quimby was aggressive in his manner, none of his edits were false or incorrect. I have noticed that there are a number of overzealous editors with a particular POV and they will have editors banned to ensure it stays that way.--207.81.56.49 15:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, as promised, is the part with the stats:

It is notable that Regina's murder rate increased by 33% between November 2005 and November 2006. Other violent crimes have also increased: third degree assault (20%), robberies (35%), kidnapping (25%), arson (50%).[1] This is attributed to the lack of concentration on violent crimes against persons, as crimes against persons is not one of the police services official objectives.

Please do not reinsert. These stats are for the entire city and I don't know why you are reinserting them into such an inappropriate place. Please explain the rationale behind your insistence, Anon. IP editor. I don't dispute the stats except for the fact that they are in the wrong place. Also, this is an encyclopaedia and you cannot fool the reader into believing that such large increases are statistically meaningful, especially when the numbers are so low in the first place. Newspapers are interested in sensationalism not Wikipedia. Mumun 無文 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually could you stop deleting them, as I have stated above. However, feel free to add a clarification statement on the actual rise in numbers vs percentage. I have reinserted it and would hope that you would respectful enough to work around it, as opposed to deletion. The information is pertient to NC as it is where nearly 80% of the murders take place. You seem to have a strong POV on this article and the neighbourhood but could you please voice via additional text vs. deletion. I hope you can respect this request.--207.81.56.49 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, only "18% of the crime in Regina occurred in this neighbourhood". I don't see how this means that it is notable enough to include crime stats on the other 82% of the city in this section. --Kmsiever 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please feel free to state that in the article. Wholesale deletion is akin to vandalism. As I have requested several times. Feel free to add your own text but PLEASE do not delete the stats. I hope that you can respect this request as well.--207.81.56.49 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF youre going to use small percentage stats perhaps we should use the latest stats on the Regina City police website (http://www.reginapolice.ca/crime_stats/2007/feb.pdf) and show the huge decreases in crimes against the person and most other crimes in the city. Friesguy 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we use the December 2006, year end found at (http://www.reginapolice.ca/crime_stats/2006/dec_2006.pdf) and combine them with these year end stats from North central (http://www.reginapolice.ca/neighbourhood_stats2006/north_central.htm) for a accurate perspective. I hope this is enough of a step towards your views to allow the edits to take place. I understand that some feel that it gives Regina a bad name but wiki isn't for promotion, it is for facts and these are facts. On another note, I am not a sock of anyone and the attempts to link me are bordering on conspiracy theory.--207.81.56.49 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Compromise"[edit]

Part I[edit]

I have offered to a compromise over the disputed statistics for North Central. I have found a link to neighbourhood stats for NC for the year ending December 2006. I would like to place these in the article along side the stats for the entire city to show the amount of crime in NC compared with the city as a whole. Since the neighbourhood stats do not contain homicides, I will omit this disputed stat until such time that I can find a primary source for them, if at all. The links to the stats are above. It is my hope that this will be sufficient enough to allow me to edit the article without creating an edit war or unsubstantiated claims as to my identity. I feel that this is a fair compromise and hope to get some feedback on this proposal.--207.81.56.49 07:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated when we discussed this previously, I see no point in including city-wide stats in this article. They should be in a city article/section devoted to crime. In addition, if we are going to include neighbourhood stats, I really think we should include them for all neighbourhoods to be consistent. I also do not think they should be percentage-based since Regina's crime stats are relatively low already. --Kmsiever 12:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as per Kmsiever. I once suggested in good faith that such things could go into a new article called Local Issues and Governance in Regina, Saskatchewan at Talk: Regina, Saskatchewan. Vancouver and several other cities have similar associated articles. Mumun 無文 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of Local issues and Governance and think we should try a move in that direction as the neighbourhoods section is becoming a dead end as so many neighbourhoods are doing fine and are lot alike so its hard to write about them. Friesguy 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. There may well be scope for a discussion of crime statistics city-wide and sector by sector in another article — and indeed, if such statistics were available perhaps such discussion could go here as a discrete section — but they are not and so it shouldn't. This is, as been pointed out several times, particularly the case when only percentages are proposed: these are meaningless when the numbers are small. Masalai 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you stone wall every possible compromise ? Citywide stats and neighbourhood stats together give the full perspective of the situation. Speaking of Local Issue, I noticed on Talk: Regina, Saskatchewan (I believe) that you already shot down that idea from a banned user. I have attempted to compromise and will now , again , request mediation. It seems you three are out to conceal the FACTS.--207.81.56.49 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request submitted.--207.81.56.49 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part II[edit]

Going ahead with previous compromise, please make an objections within 24 hours.--207.6.12.137 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in addition to the objections stated above? --Kmsiever 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those claims have be repudiated and the stats have been checked and are correct. 207.81.56.49 compromise has been deemed verifiable, correct and the content is proper for this article. If there are any objections that carry any validity then please post them here by 17:18 UTC 8 June 2007. Thank you.--207.6.12.137 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to re-read the objections. None of them stated the stats were incorrect. And who was it that considered your...er...207.81.56.49's compromise to be "verifiable, correct and proper"? --Kmsiever 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reframe your discussion, as I am getting some hostility from you. I have reviewed this compromise and feel that it more then settles the on going debate and is verifiable, correct and proper. If you can prove otherwise or come up with a reasonable and factual objection beyond a personal outlook of it doesn't belong here, when clearly it does and many other users have attempted to state as much. I look forward to a calm and well thought response or objection by the time limit. Otherwise, I have given notice, interacted, polled for objections and reasearched the dispute. I have found this to be a good middle ground, if you have a better one feel free to post it, and will be editting the text of the article after the time had expired. I hope that any objections after that point in time will avail themselves of the moderations and dispute resolution tools and attempt to revert the text. I look forward to your comments.--207.6.12.137 02:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide links to where on Wikipedia you "have given notice, interacted, polled for objections and researched the dispute". The rest of us would love to see these discussions and the consensus drawn in each. --Kmsiever 12:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no serious objections, although noting Kmsiever remarks. These remarks although noted contained no factual evidence as opposed to a body of statistics compiled by the local police authority, RPS. These stats are not only factual but are also broken into distinct neighbourhoods. It is this distinction that was the over-ruling evidence that this outline for a compromise met an necessary criteria as outlined in Wikipedia. Thank you everyone for you participation and 207.81.56.49 should feel free to go ahead with the proposed edits.--207.6.12.137 05:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to where on Wikipedia you "have given notice, interacted, polled for objections and researched the dispute". One person supporting a change while four people oppose it does not make an acceptance of a compromise. --Kmsiever 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kmsiever, thank you for your concern but you have not provided any verifiable objections or any of any substance. None of the objections recorded on this talk page are objective and are therefore void. If anyone has a objection that is not a POV then please post it. Otherwise,207.81.56.49 can edit at their leisure.--207.6.12.137 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to where on Wikipedia you "have given notice, interacted, polled for objections and researched the dispute". --Kmsiever 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kmsiever, Again thank you for your concern but the notice was posted on this discussion page, my interactions have also been on here, as has polling. The research involved verifying the legitimacy of the statistics, disputed. I found the source to be a respectable organization with a vested interest in collecting the data and ensuring it is correct. I believe that I have completed more leg work in attempting to resolve this dispute and keeping the article as informative as possible. I would like to request that any and all objections meet the same stringent criteria has proposed by this edit and {[User:207.81.56.49|207.81.56.49]] , which appears to be more then fair given the subjective nature of the current objections. Thank you , again.--207.6.12.137 18:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus are you talking about? Is it still a consensus when 2 users have a POV? What are the objections since its relevance is a given? Please stop reverts, As I have done discuss further changes in here. Please provide eveidence to back up your claim. Thank you, again.--207.6.12.137 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germantown[edit]

I am thinking that if you asked anyone under the age of 40 where Germantown was in Regina, they wouldnt have any idea. Most of that area is now known as Eastview, Downtown transitional, General Hospital,and Chinatown. I dont know if there is a blanket name for the area, I suspect not, but I will do some digging and find out.Friesguy 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Friesguy 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that since it is a historical precinct, it is not surprising that some would be unaware of the Germantown neighbourhood. I only knew because of one of Dr. Brennan's books. The text gives us an idea of the location of Germantown according to streets. Nevertheless, maybe we could insert the names of the neighbourhoods that you have raised as a way to help the reader to understand the areal scope of Germantown? In the future maybe we could include a circa 1930s map that shows the locations of the historic precincts mentioned in the text. Mumun 無文 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote as to the aerial photograph with Germantown shaded in purple in the City of Regina Archives online project Regina: The Early Years. As Mumun points out, the first sentence does describe the area by street names which is about as precise as you can get; if there is a public domain map of Regina it can be coloured in as I did with the map of Saskatchewan showing Regina's location in the info box at the top of the main Regina article. Masalai 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude but this area is now collectively referred to as the CORE area, all capitals. However, this area does not include Eastview but Germantown never did in the beginning. Many people know the history of this neighbourhood as many old German widows and couples reside in the area, even today, and many small booklets and pamphlets are available through the library on neighbourhood histories. Hope this helped.--207.6.12.137 05:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the map that Mumun ordered up but I can't say I love the look of it on the page....Masalai 09:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the recently posted map is a great start. Maybe it could go through another iteration in the future. Perhaps adding the location of the Serbian Orthodox Church and, say, one other historical structure closer to Broad (i.e. on the west side of Germantown), would serve to fill out the map? Mumun 無文 18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. The historical structure I've noted towards Broad Street is the old Trinity Lutheran, across the street from the A-frame current building but also on Ottawa Street. Perhaps the Romanian Orthodox Cathedral on Victoria Avenue at Edgar St. could also go in. Or the St Nicholas Romanian Orthodox Church on St John St.Masalai 21:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown them in too. Masalai 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection the map seemed a good idea and I have made one of the West End and the Crescents as well and added it to that section. Masalai 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good additions! Mumun 無文 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you. That was a lot of work — there must be software around somewhere that would ease that path; I used MS Word and Paint! — but it was fun. The considerable irony was seldom out of my mind throughout the finicky exercise that the whole article — notwithstanding Mr Quimby's continuing vexedness as indicated immediately below on this page — was and is conceived, if you recall and he surely does not, by way of addressing his previous wish to introduce his then- and still- and there- and here-irrelevant crime statistics elsewhere in these Regina articles! Masalai 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop !![edit]

Could Masalai, Kmsiever and Mumun 無文 please stop your accusations and misinformation or produce a viable alternative or a reasonable answer as to why you have stated that the statistics are wrong? Also, could you please stop the reverting, I have reported it. I am somewhat confused at the hostility given to myself and others in the past. The three of you have shown your ability to judge and to sentence others for disagreeing with yourselves. I would be pleased to see the reasonable and intelligent side of you three. I look forward to some fruitful discussions on this subject. Thanks. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.12.137 (talk)

You could always try continuing the conversation all of us were having earlier rather than coming to some unilateral decision on your own. Try rereading what we wrote before. No one is saying the stats are false. --Kmsiever 12:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that stats are true then your just being subjective or malicious.--207.6.12.137 15:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crescents, etc[edit]

Hi, I want to enquire about the following interesting passages from the Crescents section:

  • It is possibly significant from a sociological point of view that the only large church congregation within the Crescents is St Mary the Virgin Anglican, though the perhaps nowadays few churchgoing residents of the Crescents are of course amply served by the nearby Holy Rosary Cathedral (Roman Catholic) and Westminster United Church...

I am not sure what is meant by the above sentence and/or I am confused about the sociological significance that is suggested. I think the point that is being made is about the housing stock north of 13th, but I'm not sure. Could you please clarify this point here or in the text?
  • That being said, and notwithstanding the mildly depressing assessments of the City of Regina zoning personnel, there are certainly affluent pockets throughout the "Cathedral Area" to the north and west of the Crescents.
I think the part about depressing assessments of the city is a little unclear. Does the city have a poor or contentious record of assessing the value of properties in this area?
-) Mumun 無文 11:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mumun. Historically the West End was a neighbourhood of both rich (Westminster) and poor (Wascana) WASPs, and rich/poor English/Irish Catholics (Holy Rosary) and, later, at one time somewhat poorish Italian Catholics (Holy Rosary), and from the mid- to late-60s onwards, aboriginals and Métis. The Crescents were and continue to be wealthy WASPs. (Yes, there was a time when churchgoing patterns were a significant indicator of all kinds of demographic things: it's not that I'm especially invested in church-going as an issue of its own!) I was not referring to the assessments as depressing in terms of the quality of such assessment but in terms of the conclusions as to the West End being a depressed part of town.
What is your question? Masalai 13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You answered my questions, thank you. I wondered what the sociological significance was about the only congregation within the Crescents. I should have paid closer attention to the paragraph above the sentence that I quoted in which the sociological significance is suggested. Also, I had wondered about assessments of property values.Mumun 無文 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This paragraph sure sounds like speculation and/or original research.

It is possibly significant from a sociological point of view that the only large church congregation within the Crescents is St Mary the Virgin Anglican, though the nowadays perhaps few churchgoing residents of wider West End are of course also amply served by the nearby Holy Rosary Cathedral (Roman Catholic) and Westminster United Church. That being said, and notwithstanding the mildly depressing assessments of the City of Regina zoning personnel, there are certainly affluent pockets throughout the "Cathedral Area" to the north and west of the Crescents.

Do we have any sources to back up any of these statements? --Kmsiever 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truisms of the sociology of religion but come to think of it, you are right. These statements of the not-perhaps-to-everyone obvious do indeed perhaps require citation. It is some years since I was an undergraduate and graduate student with ready access to the the literature. The statements are not all that vital; they can come out. I shall do so. Masalai 12:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Some officious party has pre-empted us and deleted the text already! Masalai 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of neighbourhoods[edit]

Could the List of neighbourhoods/subdivisions be arranged so that it comprises two columns instead of one? I think the list is relevant. However, this is my bias but looooong lists like this with only one column do not do anything for the appearance of Wikipedia articles. Might this be rearranged into two columns? Mumun 無文 11:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least. Where does the list come from? Whose list is it? What is the definition of "neighbourhood"? Masalai 11:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that neighbourhoods consist of physical things such as groups of houses, apartments, commercial street-front stores, and social and religious infrastructure. Neighbourhoods are also social constructs. Neighbourhoods also occupy well-defined spaces. I grew up in Albert Park -- for me Albert Park, Whitmore Park, Normanview, Lakewood, etc do not meet the criteria to be called neighbourhoods. They are simply suburbs or subdivisions. It would be better if this article would restrict itself to characterise those places that fit most or all of the criteria that define Canadian neighbourhoods. Mumun 無文 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't strictly speaking suburbs; Regina doesn't have any of those. Vancouver has only a half-dozen (Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Moody, New Westminster, Surrey, North Vancouver, West Vancouver....) Even Toronto has only a half dozen or so. Brisbane, a city of two million, has none at all. The term "neighbourhoods" needs to be defined within the context of the article if it is going to be used in a technical sense as is suggested by the list. Masalai 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Notable Regina neighborhoods[edit]

It may help you out to leave an introductory article about Regina neighborhoods and their evolution, and make individual articles about notable City of Regina neighborhoods according to Statistics Canada and the City of Regina Planning Department rather than these six major Regina cultural and or historical areas to help to maintain NPOV. If the City of Regina neighborhood articles follow the WP Cities article formatting with a layout similar to this outline...Saskatchewan Communities this perhaps may also help to maintain NPOV. Try perhaps looking at Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts (from a feature article city), Meadowgreen, Stari Grad, Belgrade, or Briarwood or History of Saskatoon SriMesh | talk 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I entirely agree. There is a little group of editors who contribute to the Regina articles and we tend to discuss such matters before making substantial changes. This entire sub-article was created in response to a now-apparently-banned editor who took violent exception to the relatively innocuous discussion of the issues of crime which pertain in North Central. To that extent, the rest of the article is, to be frank, a bit of a boondoggle. As we have discussed previously (and as I mentioned in the opening paragraph) the vast majority of Regina neighbourhoods (and I reiterate my concern that the section containing the list should provide a definition of the term, in my view), do not have sufficient distinction or individual character to merit separate discussion. Little can be said of them that is not either belabouring the obvious or utterly trite. That is certainly not to disparage them in anyw way; only to suggest that there is little or nothing to be said of, say, Douglas Park or Hillsdale or Rosemount that is of general interest. Separate discussion of all the neighbourhoods in the list that has been inserted recently would be, surely, stupefyingly boring. However, as always, I merely make these observations by way of opening discussion, if others have views on the subject which they would care to share. Masalai 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that SriMesh makes an interesting and attractive proposal! Yet...at the same time I think the status quo might be enough for now. I guess that individual articles on a few Regina neighbourhoods could be done, and they could be made to look nice with maps and demographics subsections.
However, in terms of priority in the editing of Regina-related articles, I wonder why editors would be interested in striking off and spawning more articles when we have a healthy number of existing articles that need improvements. It seems prudent to me to work within the scope and parameters of this article for the moment. Chimo! Mumun 無文 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any notable City of Regina neighbourhoods. North Central maybe, but I don't think there's much more to say about it than what is said here. --Kmsiever 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal re: disposition of this section[edit]

OK, here is what I propose to do with this section. It reads as follows:

"Regina has several subdivisions, they could be further classified as suburban, industrial, residential, or green space park areas. Regina neighborhood zones include several neighborhoods. The Regina planning department has listed each neighborhood and its corresponding profile. The profile includes statistics according to the 2001 census as regards to population density, common law / marital status, family structure, private households, occupation of the neighborhood labour force, household income, education level, type, condition and age of housing, mode of transportation, and housing by tenure. The 2006 census city neighborhood profiles will be released in 2008. [2]

Remove the section altogether — the list is inaccurate, full of spelling mistakes and in any case unimportant — and put a grammatically corrected version of the opening sentence, with an appropriate citation, in the opening paragraph of the article. It is hardly a violation of the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia to discuss only those few neighbourhoods which are arguably "notable" in any sense (it is quite right in my view that only North Central is really so). If SriMesh would like to take another look at the list she has provided by way of fixing up its accuracy it could perhaps go back in, but I frankly don't see that it is a useful addition to the article. We don't want the article to become the (with great respect) mess that the Saskatoon article currently is, larded as it is with such lists which don't necessarily contain significant information. Any objections to this course? Masalai 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of neighborhoods is from the City of Regina website as per the source. If there are spelling mistakes contact the City of Regina planning department - I used their online map which listed "Regina Neighborhoods". If you don't like the neighborhoods classifications as such for Wikipedia that's fine by me, these are the ones that Statistics Canada and the City of Regina use. If you'se do a lot on these pages and you don't like the addition / list then remove it. The information is also available elsewhere on line. Wikipedia to me is a fun place to bring together information for the WWW surfer in a compact encyclopaedic point of view, if you'se have a particular point of view regarding Regina and its local areas then full steam ahead. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't take it personally, SriMesh. "Contact the City of Regina planning department" is not really the answer to errors being thrown up; the answer is to correct the errors. There is no issue with the "neighborhoods" [sic] classification; the issue is what the definition of "neighbourhood" is. If it is from Stats Can then that should be explained. However, the matter remains that a complete list of such neighbourhoods doesn't seem useful information: the fact that there is a residential precinct styled Whitmore Park and another styled Normandy Heights and some dozens of others surely counts as trivia. But more to the point, what is your understanding of the "neutral point of view" policy and in what way do you consider that the sub-article violates it? And how does adding a complete list of "neighbourhoods" (however that is defined) ameliorate such violation? Masalai 04:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. The profiling of a neighborhood which gives the stats in terms of housing, employment, income levels, population is what Stats Can groups the neighbourhoods by. My comment about the NPOV was rather to try to reply to the comment made at the Talk page, that perhaps if the article went further than the area that the disruptions were aimed at, then the focus of the anon IP & etc may also dissipate, as the article would broaden, and the disrupter may lose their focus somewhat. (long sentence hey?) I found the spelling of neighbourhoods changed from real estate agent postings to City of Regina postings which I found rather unique. My busy season at work is abating somewhat, so I should be able to be more online again, so will double check the spellings again. Regina has been rather unique to me, I have an old map where all the original roads went around and about in circles with spokes intersecting them, which I should put online. To me as a Regina 'outsider', I find the naming of older historic neighbourhoods as compared to newer recently built neighbourhoods interesting to learn about. Each Saskatoon area seemed to have a new concept for the city planning department to try out or experiment with, ie a new attempt at firstly world war planning neighbourhoods, then indoor malls, then suburban centers, then court type neighbourhoods, then family, school centered type neighbouhoods, and so on. Each neighbourhood in its era of construction seemed to play with the 'modern' concepts of the age. The older neighbourhoods mainly arose from proximity to trail/water/rail etc. Regina's evolution seems to have covered different topics with cultural areas, political areas, various timelines different from Saskatoon, and planning strategies, which compare and contrast to Saskatoon. Is your anon IP problem abating? I suppose my list is my way of starting to learn about what Regina's planning department was thinking on each area, and its time of construction, and who chose to live there, and why...You'se started the article about the neighbourhoods which have some flavour and food for thought, and notability to them. It's interesting that those written up about are so, so very colourful, and the others are so neutral or like almost invisible, but I don't know why that is. Sorry for the long reply, but it is fascinating to note the evolution of a place and why it chose the paths that it did and when...SriMesh | talk 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double checked website, the neighbourhood list has the spelling as the City of Regina lists them. The subdivision list has been removed from the City of Regina website, :-( so will have to find another source for the subdivision listing. The closest so far to finding the City of Regina's definition of neighbourhood is under the new neighbourhood development articles...so I added a paragraph about them, with the sources if that is of any help.SriMesh | talk 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the concerns about the definition of neighbourhood, as Masalai said, the section needs to be adjusted in a major way. Despite the definitions given by websites such as the City of Regina, the bulk of the list comprises subdivisions, which do not seem to meet the criteria of neighbourhood. Masalai has suggested removing the list and accompanying text. However, SriMesh has been working really hard and it would be a shame of this list disappeared altogether. May I suggest a three point compromise?
  1. How about removing the said content from this article?
  2. After removing the section from the article, how about creating a new 'List of Regina subdivisions' in which all of the said material could be placed? (I'm not so sure about this one though, because if it stands alone is it not bumping up against policies of this encyclopædia such as Relevance and Notability (WP:RELWP:NOTE)? With the possible exception of a brief treatment of the so-called 'Transitional Area', I agree with another editor who wrote that there are no other neighbourhoods to discuss. Thoughts?)
  3. After removing the section from this article, how about providing a brief definition for neighbourhood in the text if that hasn't already been done?
Cheers, Mumun 無文 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the move to a new sub-article. It, however, needs a definition of "neigbhourhoods." Masalai 13:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, been a while since I checked in with you'se, the article/s seem to each have their own complexion, which add to the area of Regina.SriMesh | talk 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference stats2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ 2001 City of Regina Profile and Neighbourhood Map (PDF), 1996–2007, retrieved June 23, 2007 {{citation}}: |first= missing |last= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Neighbourhoods in Regina, Saskatchewan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Neighbourhoods in Regina, Saskatchewan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neighbourhoods_in_Regina,_Saskatchewan&oldid=1204232711"