Talk:Concord, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Four Corners and Ethnic Diversity

I am a Concord resident, and I laughed loudly when it said Four Corners was ethnically diverse. It's not ethnically diverse, it's just Mexican dominated. It's not politically correct, but the area is dominated by Mexicans. There are Mexican stores, Mexican bars, Mexican restaurants, and lots of illegal immigrants lining Monument in the morning looking for day labor. Wikipedia should not suffer from political correctness, let's make this article as accurate as possible.

I'll agree with you in that Four Corners probably isn't any more ethnically diverse than most any other area of town because, at least by appearances, it is primarily dominated by one ethnicity (although I haven't been able to find any census data specific to the area to be able to verify this). However, I would like to clarify two things: One, there are 19 countries south of the United States other than Mexico; and two, not all day laborers are illegal immigrants. I edited the geography section to clarify accordingly.Spicoli 05:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I live nearby Concord. It seems to me that more than 3% of the people must be African American. Based on the people I see every day I would guess Concord to be about 45% white, 20% black, 20% Spanish, 20% Asian. Steve Dufour 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey Data for 2006, Concord is 64.1% White, 1.6% Black or African American, 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native, 11.3% Asian, 0.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 20.0% "Some other race", and 2.5% "Two or more races". Of all races, 29.3% are Hispanic or Latino (the Census Bureau doesn't consider Hispanic or Latino to be a race per se, and therefore tracks it separately, i.e. people who report that they are Latino have also checked off that they are white, black, other, two or more races, etc.). Keep in mind also that the Census demographic data for race and ethnicity is for residents of the city, not people who work there, which may explain why the numbers appear to you to be a bit off (Concord is a large employment center, so there are a lot of inbound commuters in addition to the more typical outbound commuters).Spicoli 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Triangle?

As a resident of Concord for the entirety of my life I'd like to know where the heck "The Triangle" came from. I've never heard of this in all my life. -Contrefait

[edit] Crime & Drugs

I've heard that Concord, CA, is supposed to have the highest methamphetine consumed per capita of any US city. I can't find a source for that, though, but having grown up in Walnut Creek and visited Todos Santos Plaza makes me think it could very well be true. Zelmerszoetrop


Actually, as of 6/06, Hawaii has the highest consumed methamphetamine per capita: http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/hawaii.html I am not surprised you heard that about Concord since people who live in neighboring cities often slander it. Here's a quote from the DEA site: "Per capita, Hawaii has the highest population of ice users in the nation. Experts unanimously blame the high crime rate (predominantly property crimes) in Hawaii on drugs."Fbmbassist 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


That Hawaii has the highest per capita usage **per state** has no bearing on the aforementioned comment. Cataclyst


While Concord does have a problem with methamphetines, Twenty-nine Palms has much more production and use of the stuff. I can't back it up by written facts, just that I grew up in Concord, and was stationed in Twenty-nine Palms. User:Deeter063 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime - Norteños vs. Sureños

A user with an anonymous IP address added a new "Crime" category that consisted of the following:

"In Monument Blvd corridor there is known to be many crimes the Surenos that live around there are agains Solano Way Nortenos. Nortenos have been stabbed and shot more than the Surenos."

While I'll admit that it seems odd to me that gang rivalries have extended into Wikipedia, that's certainly what appears to have happened here. I reverted this edit because it lacks any cited sources (WP:CITE) and it doesn't appear to be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), but it still might be worthwhile for somebody to write something up about this general subject if they can find some verifiable sources (of course it could also be said that Concord really doesn't have much of a gang problem when compared to other northern California cities). Perhaps somebody reading this discussion item will be interested in writing something up? Spicoli 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting "Concord's Districts"

On 13 May 2007, User:Ericn06 changed the "Geography" section and added a new section entitled "Concord's Districts" which basically expanded on some of the information that had previously been contained in the Geography section. I'll be the first to say that I think this is actually a pretty good idea and it's obvious that Ericn06 spent a bit of time working on it, but unfortunately what was added contains a lot of inaccuracies, original research, unsourced information, and opinions that don't always reflect a neutral point of view.

Some examples are:

  • The opening sentence states that "the city of Concord is unofficially divided into 15 distinct districts" yet gives no source for this information. Also, if they are "unofficial", then why are they being listed here in an encyclopedia? The closest official district designations that seem to exist are the City's three Community Policing Districts (Northern, Valley, and Southern), and the City's nine planning areas that are identified in the City's General Plan (Central Concord, Four Corners/Ygnacio Valley, Clayton Valley, Olivera Road, CNWS-Inland, North Concord, Lime Ridge, Buchanan Field Airport, Avon/Clyde, CNWS Tidal Area (Port Chicago), and Los Medanos Hills).
  • The first sentence describing downtown Concord is "this district is home to most of the action", which is an opinion and not fact.
  • The second sentence describing "midtown" is "this district is one of the less fortunate areas, and unfortunately not a safe place at night. Crime is prevalent here" This is an opinion ("less fortunate areas", "not a safe place at night", etc.), and is not backed up with any sources that provide crime statistics.
  • The first sentence describing "uptown" is "most people visiting Concord stick to this district". This is not backed up with any data from verifiable sources, and is likely not even true. There is also mention made of a supposed shanty town called "City 242" which, at least to my own two eyes, doesn't actually appear to exist, and in any case lacks any referenced citations.
  • "North Concord" is described as "creeping onto the old Naval Weapons Station" when in fact there has not yet been any civilian development on the Weapons Station site as it is still owned by the Navy.
  • "Four Corners" is described as being "notorious for being home to the most murders in Concord" without providing any crime statistics to back this up (and with only one case of murder/manslaughter in the entire city in 2005, and an average of 2.6 per year from 2000-2005 [1] it seems unlikely that any one place could be described as being "notorious" in that manner). The statement that Monument Blvd is "lined with hispanic day labourers, many of them illegal" is both incorrect (yes there are plenty of day laborers, but the street certainly isn't "lined" with them), and unverified (it's entirely possible that indeed many are illegal immigrants, but lets see some verifiable source data on that before including it in an encyclopedia entry). And the statements that "by night it is a dangerous area" and "it can be a very eye opening experience" are opinion.
  • "Bancroft" is described as "peaceful", which is an opinion; it's described as being next to downtown Pleasant Hill, which it's not; it's described as being next to Walnut Creek's Walden District, which is in fact a neighborhood not in Walnut Creek but in the unincorporated County; and in any case the neighborhood along Bancroft Road that is located within Concord is generally known as Colony Park.

Unfortunately, I think that while the idea of describing each of Concord's "districts" is a good one, as it's currently written this new section needs to be thoroughly researched and rewritten in a neutral point of view before it is included in this article. Therefore I'm going to revert it. Spicoli 04:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I am a long time Concord resident and the information I provided was well researched and I worked hard to compile it. I don't know if that text is saved somewhere but I believe it would be in the best interest of the article if it was revived. I have no citations because it was unofficially put together by many Concord residents. They are commonly referred to through out the city. Also what you referred to as opinions are fact based on the experiences of those living within the city. I hope you understand and return the article to it's previous state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericn06 (talk • contribs)
I share Spicoli's concerns, but it's rather late, so I'm going to put a longer response off until tomorrow. --Falcorian (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the hard work that you put into this entry, Ericn06, as I know how long it can take to write a Wikipedia entry. I also think that information of this type would be a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, the problem here is that most of what was added was, as you say, "unofficial" and based on "experiences of those living within the city". Wikipedia has three core content policies: no original research (NOR), neutral point of view (NPOV), and Verifiability (V). These three policies form the basis of what should be included on a Wikipedia page, and unfortunately, I believe that your unofficial research that was based on experiences of those living within the city runs counter to these policies. I kindly suggest that you consider the following:
Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories... Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
WP:NOR
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
WP:V
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
WP:NPOV



With regard to the issue of opinion versus fact, statements such as "this district is one of the less fortunate areas, and unfortunately not a safe place at night. Crime is prevalent here" is an opinion, while something along the lines of "crime statistics published by the Concord Police Department for the year 2005 indicate an above average crime rate, with ## violent crimes per 1,000 residents, compared to the city's average of ## per 1,000 residents" is verifiable fact. This of course would then have to be backed up with a reference to the source of this data (such as a published report or website that includes these crime statistics). It is simply not enough to say that an area is dangerous just because you and some other residents think it is.
I am going to revert this back again because I believe that as it currently stands, this addition runs significantly afoul of the above mentioned Wikipedia policies. I also still question the accuracy of some of the information presented, however this is somewhat of a moot point because it shouldn't be included anyway if it can't be attributed to a verifiable published source. If you disagree, please post your dissusion here. If you feel strongly enough about it to revert my revert, I'll just tag the section as {{Original research}}, {{unsourced}}, and {{NPOV-section}}, to notify readers and allow for some discussion from other editers/admins before making futher reverts.
Lastly, I am sure that you are acting in good faith, and I don't want to discourage you from researching this subject matter and making further additions. I encourage you to continue your work on Concord's districts/neighborhoods, as I too feel that it would be a valuable addition. Spicoli 05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)