Talk:Eastside Los Angeles

message: If the subject's main article has information that he or she is linked to East L.A., then I believe that person can be listed here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable natives and residents .  .  

message: Much of this article reads like WP:Original research, and it bodes well to be challenged and removed unless some sources are attached to the information. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Very  badly sourced

message: When I stumbled upon this discussion, I noticed that the article contains the text about halving the city between East and West.  I find this to be a false dichotomy, and it is perfectly acceptable for parts of Los Angeles to be in neither East nor Westside.  Therefore, I propose that the halving language be removed, and replaced with the Westside begins somewhere b/w Alvarado and La Brea pbp 04:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Halving the city"

message: The "halving the city" language is part of a massive amount of nonsense, all sourced to a random website called theeastsider.com, added today by .  That's not a reliable source for anything, and contrasting its opinions about what's where with every reliable source in the world is a massive violation of WP:UNDUE.  I therefore propose that we revert to here and then cautiously, if deemed necessary, add a small sentence or two about the risible fact that Silver Lake thought for one hot second that it was on the East side.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastside_Los_Angeles&oldid=588848335 here]

message: I reverted it back to my preferred revision even though it's still under discussion because now the bot found a zillion links to dab pages and put a template at the top of the article.  I don't want to fix all the dab links because it seems likely that the material will all be removed soon enough so the work will be wasted.  Furthermore, the preferred method for BRD is to discuss changes while the page remains at status quo ante, which is where I have returned it to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRD]] and status quo ante 

message: I asked for an expert opinion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_http:.2F.2Fwww.theeastsiderla.com.2Fneighborhoods_reliable_for_which_neighborhoods_are_on_the_East_side_of_LA.3F.  If the experts say that it's not, perhaps we can focus our discussion down a little more into how much coverage, if any, this recent kerfluffle about Silver Lake and Echo Park claiming East side cred should get in our article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is theeastsiderla.com even reliable for this kind of thing? 

message: Conversation between me and  moved here from my talk page to allow for wider discussion
I agree with you to clean up the Eastside article to be just those neighborhoods East of Downtown LA. However, the information about the Silver Lake Neighborhood council their vote should be included in the article because its relevant. Could you bring it back somehow? Thanks. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should have a short section at the end of the article.  I'll get around to it soon or you can do it, but the important thing is to avoid both recentism and undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

text: The more I think about including material on this the less sure I am.  The laist.com article on the Silver Lake NHC isn't much of a source, being mostly a series of jabs at Silver Lake yuppies.  Similarly with the LA Weekly thing about five ways to look at the East side.  I don't think this particular manifestation of the issue made the LAT, but maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not sure if we can find enough actually reliable sources reporting on the issue to be able to write much material.  I know it looms large in the local consciousness, but is it discussed in secondary sources?  I'll think about it, and maybe someone can suggest something here?  The LAT seems to spend a lot more time debating where the West side ends than it does where the East side begins.  The probable answer to the first question can certainly be found in The Day of the Locust.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, the LA Times finally weighed in on the matter, allowing me to make a first attempt at a reliably sourced discussion of the matter.  See what you all think.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to put in this article about Silver Lake and so forth 

message: First of all, I prefer the heading "Contested geography" for this section because "misconceptions" doesn't sound neutral to me, even though I agree that the ideas described in the section are misconceptions.  There's no reason to use a loaded term to describe the issue.
Second, I think that including this sentence:  is giving undue weight to the opinions of the SLNC.  They're not experts, they're not a reliable source, their opinions on almost anything are irrelevant, so who cares if they vote that the east side starts east of downtown?  Putting it in the article seems to me to be giving undue weight to the SLNC.  What if the SLNC voted that Mars was part of South LA?  Who cares?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  re: SLNC vote. SLNC is a quasi-govermental group set up by the City. Their votes do matter as far as being influential to future city policy, one of which is neighborhood boundaries, marks, etc. Moreover, if you read the full opinion, they like Garcetti, base their opinion on their long-standing history with the City. Thus, just like Garcetti's opinion is highlighted in the article, this should be also. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quasi-governmental and it's not set up by the city.  It's set up by its members and recognized by the city.  Anyone can set up a neighborhood council as long as they get enough signatures and anyone can join and participate in the governance of the council.  They're certainly not reliable sources for anything, and their activities and pronouncements are notable only insofar as they're reported on by reliable sources.  This is why I think their opinion about what the East side is isn't important enough to put into this article.  What they think about their own neighborhood is only worth putting in because the LA Times reported on it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This remark was wrong six years ago, and it is wrong today. There is an extremely bureaucratic method of setting up neighborhood councils, all governed by the City of L.A. and financed by the city. I am sure that people understand that by now. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested geography vs misconceptions