Talk:Rockridge, Oakland, California

message: I deleted the following paragraph:
"Rockridge residents know their neighborhood for another unique fact:  it is one of only a handful of California neighborhoods where it is possible to live without a car.  Many homes in the Rockridge neighborhood are marketed as "green" dwellings for this reason."
...as essentially unverifiable and POV. Frankly, it's "possible" to live in <I>any</i> neighborhood without a car. It may not be convenient - but what's convenient and what's not is a POV question. In any case, while California generally isn't as public transit-centric as eastern cities like New York or Boston, there are numerous neighborhoods in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Albany, El Cerrito, San Leandro, Hayward, and doubtless elsewhere throughout the Bay Area where it's perfectly possible to live without a car. So aside from being unveriafiable, I think it's rather inaccurate.
If anyone can come up with a reasonable argument for why the statement is (a) valid, (b) verifiable, and (c) NPOV, feel free to make it. Jcb9 20:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

message: ...Listen to some of the unverifiable/POV material in this article: "Other portions of the neighborhood consist of small bungalows and cottages that are popular for their quintessential California charm and character.[citation needed]"..."Rockridge's homes "represent some of the most coveted real estate in the Bay Area."[citation needed]"..."Several of these restaurants have achieved national and international reputations for excellence in fine dining.[citation needed]"  This sounds like schmaltzy drek and drivel oozing straight off the centerfold of a glossy real-estate listing brochure.  I'd tweak these a bit.  Anyone have other thoughts to the contrary?Critical Chris (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Real estate agent schmaltz

message: There is a notice at the bottom of the page explaining why the references cited in the text do not show up. It says a reference tag is needed. But I was unable to find out from "help" what they are talking about or what needs to be done. Can someone pleasle add the necessary reference tag so that references will show up?
LATER: Thank you for fixing this! 
MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NEW: For some reason the "reference tag needed" error flag has reappeared - even though there IS a  tag at the bottom of the page. What is wrong now? The tag appeared in "preview" mode while I was editing a recent change, even though I had made no change in the tag and neither had the previous editor. So I tried, still in "preview," changing { { reflist } } to < references / >, but neither version seems to make it happy. Then I tried (in preview only, didn't save it) changing it back to { { reflist } } as it was before, but it still didn't work. I am stumped. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NEVER MIND! and thank you for fixing it. The problem was that I hadn't properly formatted a comment I added. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference tag needed - what's that?  

message: I have been going back and forth with another editor about his recent addition of a paragraph to the "history" section, about a real estate sale in Rockridge, alleged to be the highest price ever paid for a residential property in Oakland. We have been debating it in an "invisible comment," but we should obviously bring it here to "discussion" where others can participate. That is what this section is for. 
I have been concerned about two issues:
* I am still waiting for a WP:RS reliable outside source verifying that this really was the highest price ever paid for a residential property in Oakland (not just that the sale took place, which I presume it did although I can't find that anywhere on the internet either - all I found is that it was being offered for sale for $4.85M, which might not be the same as the actual price paid). If no outside source such as a local newspaper sees fit to mention this landmark, then it is by definition non-notable. 
* Even if verified by an outside source, I question whether this is really the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. There was obviously some previous property that held the "title"; there will be some future property that will surpass it; not worth updating the encyclopedia entry every time IMO. 
The other poster is also concerned about a third issue, which is that I keep deleting his references to the real estate agent involved, as promotional hype. 
Here is where our discussion stands currently, copied from the "invisible comments" in the article:
* ME: Thanks for trying, but the Oakland Association of Realtors webpage you linked to does not confirm this assertion, or even mention the sale. Can you find some other link or published reference that confirms the information? I'm not trying to be a pill here, or to doubt the information, but Wikipedia requires at least one outside or published source -see Wikipedia:Reliable sources - to establish that the information is worthy of including in an encyclopedia article. Also, the broker is not notable by WP standards, and including his name seems more like a commercial plug than encyclopedic information. 
* OTHER EDITOR: The broker is a nationally famous athlete who is celebrity in many circles.  To most that seems notable, especiallly, considering a wikipedia page in being formed about him.  If lance armstrong were to have been the listing broker, would that not be notable? WP's standards are liberal on this point. Will all due respect you're editing this based upon opinion, not on any accepted standards.  If a notable individual is involved in the transaction, of whom, lives and contributes to the quality of life in the Bay Area his name should be included as a matter of historical record.  I suggest waiting for the broker's page to be created, as he's been active in many national causes and political issues. I think you'll then see why it's important to include his name within the historical record.  Again, respectfully speaking, I disagree that and believe his name should be included, but I'll not edit it again until the broker's own wiki page is created, at which point it will be entirely obvious that he is a historically important figure residing in Oakland, CA. 
* ME: Let's move this discussion to the discussion page. I will copy our comments from here and then delete them. 
Responding to his latest post, I will say that before deleting the broker I did try a Google search for him - he had been described as "famed former USA Cycling Professional turned California Real Estate Broker, Eric M. Abrams". The only things I found on Google were his bio at the real estate brokerage he works for, some other references to his real estate business, and his Twitter account. If he is as famous an athlete as he claims, Google doesn't seem to realize it. But the issue of his fame or lack of it can be settled when he creates his wikipedia page, as he is apparently in the process of doing. 
Meantime I would like opinions from other editors here about whether the "most expensive residential real estate transaction in Oakland's history" is notable enough to include in the "history" section of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LATER: No citation has been offered and I still can't find anything online to confirm this sale so I am deleting the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph in "history" section about a residential real estate sale 

message: I'm not sure if this particular supporting media would be helpful for the article, so I thought I'd add it here.
Rockridge Park Flyer (date unknown)
timsamoff (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting media for "racial history"