Talk:San Fernando Valley/Archives/2013

politics more to the right as we move north

I don't believe this is true: "The politics lean more and more to the right as the valley progresses North." E.g. Mission Hills, Arleta, Pacoima are more right-leaning than e.g. Woodland Hills? I think this is dubious enough to need a source else we should take it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________

I do not believe the statment either and agree this needs a source or be removed. Yes, the east and west sides of the Valley are most definitely different in their views!

In reviewing that section I would suggest that the line "This is especially true in the Southern areas.." be changed from southern to south-east. Also, "the affluent north side of the Hollywood Hills." Remove this line as it is too limiting. Much of the area south of Burbank Blvd. is now considered to be 'affluent'. Thanks Imveracious (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that one sentence since there was no disagreement here. I'm about to remove the sentence about the affluent north side. I'm not sure about the south-east part, so I'll leave that alone for now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Superficial / Materialistic

Is it encyclopedic to mention the "valley girl/guy" stereotype in slightly more depth than just a "see also" link? In the same way some people are "best known" for one weird thing, the valley is probably best known as the source of this stereotype. It should probably have more weight on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.70.89 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I do not believe it to be of such importance that we need to do as to such. At its height it was nothing more than a youthful colloquial expression, an outgrowth from the 1983 movie "Valley Girl". Today, it is an out-dated and un-used descriptor. Imveracious (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Internal renaming secession subsection

This section: San_Fernando_Valley#Internal_renaming_secession seems awfully synthy and full of OR. I'd like to take the part about the motivations out. Any opinions?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason, as written, is correct. Imveracious (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean the reason for the internal renamings of neighborhoods as written in the article is correct? I don't doubt that it is completely correct, it's just that since it isn't a manifest fact, I'd like to see it very well sourced. Since it's attributing motives to actual people I'd like to see it taken out until it's sourced because it strikes me as unencyclopedic without sourcing. Since it's not about individual named people, I don't feel any sense of urgency about the matter. It seems like one of those things that everyone knows, but no one writes down.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was referring to and I see no problem with leaving it as it is, I do not feel that in itself it needs to be sourced. This happens in all larger cities, notwithstanding the wording. Not each and every sentence needs a source, specially in this case, where the subject of such is so very commonplace and the motive is well understood. Thanks Imveracious (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, let's leave it as it is for now; probably it's sourceable from the LA times or something. I'll keep looking into it and maybe I'll find something or someone else will show up with sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be as this type of action would generally require the approval of the Los Angeles City Council and therefore would have been published, though not necessarily in the Los Angeles Times. You have to remember that at one time here in the Valley, what was news to one was not news to all, and as such only a more local newspaper would have carried the story. Imveracious (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above section was reinstated to the article by Imveracious, but the source cited does not support what the section says. At least I couldn't find it. The source simply lists many of the Valley communities and describes them. Nothing about secession, or renaming. Therefor I am challenging and removing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I believe it would be more prudent to challenge any portion with an in-line citation before removing simply removing it immediately...

Perhaps you did not read the section I was referring to (NoHo Arts District) where it states what I had written. Aside from that and as I wrote prior, this matter would need the approval of the Los Angeles City Council if the area to be renamed was to be recognized as such by the City. I will add another reference to hopefully clarify this on-going matter. Although, once again, I ask that if you disagree to use an in-line citation before removing it. Thanks Imveracious (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Anything not sourced or badly sourced can be challenged and removed. Also, "this matter would need the approval of the Los Angeles City Council if the area to be renamed was to be recognized as such by the City." I am not at all sure what you are talking about here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes while you may remove poorly or unsourced material, at times, this can be a fine line. What may appear as such to you, may not so to another and as such is why I wrote that an in-line citation challenge may have been more appropriate. Each editor has their own way.... No big deal in this and I don't wish to split hairs. I do hope that the recently added portion to the section in question resolves what you do not understand in regards to the "need the approval of the Los Angeles City Council". Imveracious (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can't take one or two simple statements from community newsletters or blogs to weave an interpretation as was originally done at the beginning of this section. It is better to have a sparsely worded article that is backed up by sources than a more fulsome article embodying a large degree of WP:Synthesis. Thus I've removed almost everything that is not backed up by the sources, and I have pointed out just who is making these claims.GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

\________________________________________________________________________

You are argumentative, pragmatic and contradictory. You do not seem to understand the Wiki principle that no single editor should judge or act as you have in making the decisions of what should or should not be included in an article. Frankly what you have written is gibberish and hopefully another editor will remove it as it does not enhance the article. Happily the record will stand as to who the editor that made it such was....better you than I. Imveracious (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)