Talk:Tulsa, Oklahoma

Demographics

In connection with the 1921 Race Riot, I see you returned the comment about Tulsa being "still geographically divided between predominately poor and African-American north Tulsa, and predominately wealthy and white south Tulsa."

While this is true in a very general sense, it is misleading to single Tulsa out compared with other U. S. cities. I discussed this with a good African-American friend who lives on the north side. She pointed out that new, nice houses are being built all the time in north Tulsa, that it is not all black, and that south Tulsa is a mix.TulsaTV 13 Apr 2004

Basically, the question to ask is, is the statement "still geographically divided between predominately poor and African-American north Tulsa, and predominately wealthy and white south Tulsa" factual? Our task as Wikipedians is to report, not to judge, hence the NPOV policy. It is true that "new, nice houses are being built all the time in north Tulsa, that it is not all black, and that south Tulsa is a mix"; however, that is precisely why the word "predominantly" appears in the statement, to qualify it as a tendency rather than as an absolute. There can be no doubt that the statement does accurately describe general trends in Tulsa; visit City Hall and ask for demographic maps collected by the records department which will confirm that north Tulsa, in general, has a much higher African-American population and a much lower average income level than south Tulsa. --Lowellian 20:16, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Re the question of whether Tulsa is "still geographically divided between predominately poor and African-American north Tulsa, and predominately wealthy and white south Tulsa":

Again, in general, it is somewhat true, however, the real question is whether it is pronounced in comparison with other cities in the Midwest region. If not, then to report it this way (following the history of the 1921 Race Riot) is misleading. Do you believe Tulsa is segregated to an unusual degree? My friend in north Tulsa, who is a world traveller and native Tulsan long a resident of north Tulsa, disagrees, and so do I.

I see that the entry for Washington, D.C. does not make note of its sharp geographical/socioeconomic/racial lines. Should this be noted? Would it be more significant in light of the fact that Washington had a race riot in 1919?

By the way, could I ask you to sign and date all your comments? Thank you.

Moving on to the topic under discussion: When cities exhibit clear demographic trends linked to geography, then, yes, I believe the article for the city should contain the information. This includes Washington, DC, and other major cities in the United States with such clear demographic trends. I am not attempting to "single out" Tulsa; rather, I have contributed to the Tulsa article in the past and am simply trying to make the information there more complete. I have not added information about demographics to cities with which I am less familiar with the demographic trends.

Notice that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and most of its articles are not really complete. For example, the fact that a bibliography has not yet been written for the article on one famous author does not mean that it should not be written for the article on another famous author.

--Lowellian 19:31, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

There is an abundance of data on segregation in U.S. cities at http://www.censusscope.org/us/s40/rank_dissimilarity_white_black.html. The white-black dissimilarity index shows Tulsa rated as 60.3. By comparison, Austin is 60.9, Oklahoma City is 61, Wichita is 63, all very slightly more segregated than Tulsa (Washington, D.C. is 81.5). Therefore the statement that Tulsa is "still geographically divided between predominately poor and African-American north Tulsa, and predominately wealthy and white south Tulsa" is erroneous and misleading. I intend to remove it unless you have a cogent response to this information. TulsaTV 13:42, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Check your link again. It actually shows Oklahoma City at 59.0, below Tulsa. And if you check Kansas, Wichita is 59.4, also below Tulsa.

Most large American cities are segregated to some extent (which is precisely why the terms "ghettoes" and "inner city" have the connotations they do in the United States). The question here is not whether an area that has a statistically significant larger percentage of a particular racial or ethnic group exists (as at least one such area clearly does exist in most large American cities), but where that area is. Depending on the city, it could be in the east, the west, the north, or the south. In Tulsa, the area with the larger African-American population is the north. Just because other cities are also segregated does not mean that Tulsa is not. 60.3 is still a fairly high number; it is well above 50, and places Tulsa second in Oklahoma, only behind Muskogee. And like I said earlier, just because other cities do not yet have such kinds of information does not mean that they should not have such information, because Wikipedia is a work still in progress.

However, maybe we could change the statement somewhat. Consider this proposal: Move the statement away from the Tulsa Race Riot discussion (so as not to imply that one led to the other). Instead, move it into the Demographics section and rephrase the statement into something along the lines of "Much of the African-American population of Tulsa lives in the northern part of the city, which has a lower average income than the rest of the city." --Lowellian 18:04, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on those dissimilarity indices. It was a honest mistake. My point was not that the other cities named were significantly more segregated, but that the numbers were very close. That is still true with the corrected figures.

Re your proposed statement, "Much of the African-American population of Tulsa lives in the northern part of the city...":

"Much" implies to me at least 50%, possibly as much as 80% or so. Is there any factual basis for an assertion even this broad? I would agree that north Tulsa (defined even at its broadest, as the area north of Admiral) has a higher proportion of African-Americans that other broad sectors of Tulsa, but not necessarily "much" of the A-A population.

The area north of Admiral today is large and diverse. TulsaTV 18:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On further reflection, the term "north Tulsa" usually implies not the entire area north of Admiral, but historical north Tulsa, i.e., north of downtown Tulsa and not more than a few miles to the east. I still don't see any data supporting the "much" statement. The only other relevant link I can find is http://www.censusscope.org/us/m8560/chart_exposure.html, but it doesn't really answer the question. Your statement above, "In Tulsa, the area with the larger African-American population is the north," is undoubtedly true, but the stronger assertion "Much of the African-American population of Tulsa lives in the northern part of the city..." is not yet supported. TulsaTV 08:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Stuff

Being from tulsa, there are things I'd like to add to the page... maybe some stuff about local commerce or something. I was thinking about adding a quick note that the Williams group (petroleum shipping, and recently, telecom company) is headquartered there (and in fact responsible for the biggest building downtown). I didn't want to actually add it until we have a good list of major companies based there to avoid any POV concerns. --DUc0N 22:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Tulsan

Whoever keeps editing out the link to The Tulsan needs to get a life. This is what one gets, people, in Tulsa. These people think the world revolves around them, and if anything is done to challenge them they are as close-minded as one would expect any podunk backwater to be. I have debated all comers on all forums available, and the opposition loses every time. My advice to anyone thinking of moving to Tulsa or Oklahoma is DO NOT DO IT. The town is dying, the state is backward, and a lot of the people are the self-righeous narrow-minded clods one would expect.

See the above section. I should also make you aware of our Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Also, if you vandalize this talk page once more I will block you. -- Hadal 16:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with the removal, as I did it first. Move to keep thetulsan.com off wikipedia. Danlovejoy 16:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure you do Dan. I have been critical of your right-wing agenda, your friends, and your party. If The Tulsan is soooooo awful, why did I have to beg your right-wing buddy Michael Bates to remove it from his site after it had been there for YEARS? I apologize for defacing your comments, misguided or not. It was wrong of me to express my frustration by removing his attempt to cast dispersions on my abilities and usefulness of The Tulsan. That is ssoooooooo Tulsa Whirled of you Dan!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means. I understand how having your site removed could be frustrating and make you want to lash out, but I would implore you to moderate your tone for the sake of congeniality.

My ideological leanings and associations are not relevant to this discussion, but you really have gotten them wrong nonetheless. I don't even live in Tulsa, and I had never heard of you before I deleted your link from the Tulsa entry. I have met Michael Bates one time, but I don't really understand (nor care about) his role in this "controversy." We don't speak regularly. I don't have any particular agenda with regard to Wikipedia, and my poltical leanings are not so simply distilled as "right wing," although that is a convenient label.

The great thing about the web is that anyone can put up any old tripe they want. That's why I'm allowed a site! But it also means that people can pick and choose what they link to. I think the community will agree with me that your site doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. However, since you accuse me of ideological bias, I will not remove your link again. Someone else should, and probably will. Danlovejoy 20:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inasmuch as these comments are for the record, please note: Dan LIED when he told Wikipedia that 'most of the links are broken.' Which brings us to the second LIE, that the 17th was the first time he had seen The Tulsan, he in fact defamed The Tulsan on the 11th when he also deleted the site. Which begs the question, Danny-boy: ya see something one time, and decide it is unworthy, unprofessional, profane, and non-notable? Quick study, guy! Dan, I am willing to let this go, but I am very angry at your behaviour, and wonder if the OC knows how you are spending your time picking on lil' me. An apology would go far in helping me get over this. :)

PLEASE leave the discussion intact rather than just chopping out sections from the middle so no one knows who said what, or when.

Well, lovely. Now we have veiled threats. My edit history is open for anyone to view (including my boss). The site I removed on the 11th was ShopTulsa.com, as you would have seen instantly if you had bothered to look. As for your threat, I feel pretty good about my position at my work, so if you'd like to write to my boss and ask her "how she feels about [me] spending my time picking" on you, I encourage you to do so. Trust me, you are not even close to the craziest person she's ever dealt with. Danlovejoy 02:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oooooooohhhhh . . . I see it now. Sorry for the misunderstanding! My bad! You did not delete thetulsan on the 11th or say that it is mostly non-working links. I issue total retraction on the remarks above. Your job is safe! :)

NOTE: I added a 'k' to the word 'working' in the post above