Talk:Rodeo Drive/Archive 1

Archive 1

[untitled section]

According to the Beverly Hills Wikipedia entry, horses were outlawed in the city in 1930, which would make a horse path on Rodeo unusable to horses between 1930 and 1950. I suppose it is possible that it was left there, unused by horses for 20 years. More to the point though, the name Rodeo has nothing to do with that horse path, but with the Spanish translation of the Tongva "Meeting of the Waters," or, "Rodeo de las Aguas" which was located near Rodeo and Sunset. Ref. the Beverly Hills article and numerous other Internet sources. This should definitely be changed in the article. Timnmnangers 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UCT)

Rodeo Drive has dozens of famous stores. Why should we mention just this one defunct business? It makes no sense. If it had been part of a longer list, it would still be an odd addition, but wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb. As it stands, it just doesn't fit.

The only question in my mind is why someone would elevate this guy to such unreasonable levels of importance, but that's explained in detail on your User page, where you explain that you're his number one fan and have chosen your wiki-name in his honor. In plain English, you're as partisan about him as you are about Rand, which is why your POV has no place in this article. I am reverting once again unless you come here and explain precisely why I'm wrong. If you don't, I will request that this article be Protected, just like Ayn Rand, and we both know there's no way to guarantee which version gets frozen.

You are either going to learn how to play ball or quit the game. Alienus 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One million articles and you end up reverting on this one? I wonder how that happened? I am reverting you for the simple fact that you are doing this to be annoying to Laszlo. Billyjoekoepsel 07:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if you addressed the issue of content instead of making this personal. In fact, not only would it be wonderful, it would be consistent with your obligations as a Wikipedia editor.

In other words, do you have a point or are you just here to be uncivil? Alienus 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It does fit; I'm not saying he's the ONLY person who should be included in the article. On the contrary, I think the article should include other notable people as well. All that aside, however, the fact is that Laszlo is notable and merits inclusion in the article. If you find other people who are even more notable, then add them. LaszloWalrus 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You here to help the article or popularize this one dude? If it's the former, then prove it by listing at least a dozen stores on Rodeo Drive. Then you can keep your guy. Otherwise, you're just abusing the page. You have 12 hours to do this before I revert. Alienus 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I have only twelve hours before Alienus the Mighty and Terrible reverts the page. My heart stopped. Frankly, I'd have trouble finding a dozen stores worthy of inclusion. As I said before, if you can find them feel free to include them. As to Laszlo's notability, He's in MOMA. That's enough. LaszloWalrus 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. When Laszlo is actually mentioned in the L.A. Times in the august company of truly creative artists like Constantin Brancusi and Robert Graham, then he'll be worth mentioning here. --Coolcaesar 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Caesar, my point isn't that Laszlo isn't notable, just that he's not notable enough to be singled out this way. If Walrus wants to contribute to expanding this article, and incidentally make an appropriately minor aside about his favorite architect, that's fine by me. But the article should not be twisted in a promotional device. Since Walrus doesn't seem interested in genuinely contributing, I'll be reverting his changes here in a few minutes. It's a shame, because this stub could use some material. Alienus 08:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Laszlo is overly-prominent. If you know of other people associated with Rodeo Drive who are also notable, then add them. The article is too short as it is. In the case of Laszlo, he was associated with Salvador Dalí and Isamu Noguchi, he is in MOMA, he's constantly referred to in architectural and design publications like Architectural Digest and Wallpaper*, there have been several articles about him in Time Magazine, his furniture appeared in the Kehlsteinhaus, he's designed for numerous luminaries (see his page for a list), etc. Any two or three of these coupled with his association with Rodeo Drive is enough. Again, if you find other notable people, add them to expand the article, but Laszlo clearly belongs. LaszloWalrus 09:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nobody here but me, you and Caesar. And you're the only one so in love with your namesake that you want to insert him here. Sorry, but it's not justifiable and you are not objective enough to understand why. I will revert at my convenience unless you can make a compelling argument that convinces one of us. Alienus 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are two for including Laszlo (Billyjoekoepsel and I) and two against (Alienus and CoolCaesar). Please inform me why the reasons I've provided for including Laszlo aren't enough. LaszloWalrus 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Billy no longer supports the inclusion of your namesake on this article, making this three to one. If my understanding is wrong, I'll allow Billy to correct it. Alienus 08:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone for now, since the consensus is against me; nevertheless, your assertion that Billy no longer supports Laszlo's inclusion is a lie, as you know that Billy has left wikipedia. LaszloWalrus 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It really has less to do with Billy and more to do with common sense. The idea that "three to one" is an appropriate way to view a content dispute here is unfortunate, but unfortunately common. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are we adding the Paul Laszlo back? I thought the consensus was to leave his name out. -Will Beback 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Al 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wag the dog

I'm sorry, but it's just incorrect to say that Rodeo Drive is "also famous for having once been home to" etc. That's not what Rodeo Drive is famous for, at all. Maybe Paul Laszlo is more famous for having designed furniture on Rodeo Drive, I don't know. People don't say "Rodeo Drive, isn't that the street where Paul Laszlo used to design furniture? Yeah, I've heard of that place."

Check out this google search. Except for the two copies of this article that the "-wikipedia" didn't catch, there's a handful of articles about Paul Laszlo indicating that he used to work on Rodeo. Nobody is writing articles about Rodeo Drive and mentioning Paul Laszlo in them. Articles about Rodeo Drive mention names like Ralph Lauren and The Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, not Paul Laszlo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I cut this out of the article: "The shopkeepers in the district are known to be quite cordial to shopping regulars or tourists, however and the area continues to be high on the list of "must-see" places in Los Angeles. Obviously, it's one of the hottest places to see fashion, go celebrity-watching and to enjoy window shopping." This seems to me to be highly biased. Any thoughts? LaszloWalrus 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be true, but it is unverifiable and POV. Plus the tone is a bit too breathless for an encyclopedia. -Will Beback 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Paul Laszlo to the article; we now have a pretty good list of people and stores on Rodeo Drive. Laszlo was influential in the early days of Rodeo, before it was really famous, and has a far greater connection to the place than Rage Against the Machine. LaszloWalrus 09:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How is the fact that he had his office on Rodeo of interest to readers of this article? More to the point, the above discussion makes it clear that other editors disagree with placing that info in this article. Please see Wikipedia:consensus. -Will Beback 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on Rodeo Drive has no photos of Rodeo Drive?!

In my opinion, it is crazy that this article has only photos of Via Rodeo (a private shopping center technically located off of Rodeo Drive) rather than the drive itself. It's like illustrating an entire article on John F. Kennedy with photos of his parents. The article should be illustrated with photos of the drive itself. --Coolcaesar 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation should be in IPA, not an ad hoc pronunciation scheme. It is also potentially POV - is the pronunciation /roU"deIoU/ (which is the SAMPA for what I believe is the intended US pronunciation) everywhere English is spoken, only in the US, only in California, or where? — Paul G (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How long was this paragraph in here fore? Geez

How long was this paragraph in the article for?

In return for the gregarious and generous reception, the Europeans brought the Tongva the gifts of Christianity (by force or through conversion by death) and civilization, accompanied by economic and cultural subjugation and imported diseases. One of the region's recurring smallpox epidemics took the lives of the majority of Tongva in 1844; the remainder soon succumbed to other pressures.

I was expecting to find it was a recent edit, but it appears it was in here for a long time without getting caught. The things people can slip in-sheesh. Brentt (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations from http://seeing-stars.com/shop/RodeoDrive.shtml

See duplication detector report. Please don't put this material back in without (a) establishing its relevance and (b) writing it in your own words.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations from http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/what-to-do/activities/rodeo-drive-walk-style

See duplication detector report. Please don't replace this material without (a) writing it in your own words and (b) establishing its relevance given that there's a whole separate article on this topic essentially duplicated in this section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture

I removed this material:

==Pop Culture== ===Film and Television=== Rodeo Drive has been used as a filming location for countless films and television shows. Rodeo Drive has been used as the backdrop of many films and movies as the three short blocks constitute the most famous shopping district in America, and probably the most expensive block of shops in the world. The luxury of the site has provided producers and filmmakers with the quintessential "Hollywood" atmosphere that most have come to associate with Beverly Hills. Some of the most famous cult classics of the 80s and 90s were filmed on the drive. Various television shows have been set in Beverly Hills and made references to the drive, however only one, "Rodeo Drive," has actually been based on the street. This show revealed the lives and secrets of the rich and famous found on Rodeo Drive. ====Films==== {| class="wikitable" |- ! Film!! Stars!! Released |- | [[Body Double]] || Craig Wasson, Melanie Griffith, Gregg Henry || 26 October 1984 |- | [[Beverly Hills Cop]] || Eddie Murphy, Judge Reinhold, John Ashton || 5 December 1984 |- | [[Down and Out in Beverly Hills]] || Nick Nolte, Bette Midler, Richard Dreyfuss || 31 January 1986 |- | [[Pretty Woman]] || Richard Gere, Julia Roberts, Jason Alexander || 23 March 1990 |} ====Television==== {| class="wikitable" |- ! Show !! Stars!! Aired |- | [[Scruples (miniseries)|Scruples]] || Lindsay Wagner, Barry Bostwick, Marie-France Pisier || 1980 |- | [[Beverly Hills 90210]] || Jason Priestley, Shannen Doherty, Luke Perry || 1990-2000 |- | [[Clueless (TV series)|Clueless]] || Rachel Blanchard, Stacey Dash, Donald Faison|| 1998 |- | Rodeo Drive || Jorrit van der Kooi || 2001-2005 |}

Because it seems pointless to have a list of every TV show and movie that shows the street. There'll be no end to it. What does any of this, except maybe the van der Kooi thing, have to tell the reader about Rodeo Drive? It seems to me that if anything about pop culture is to be included, there ought to be a reliable source (WP:RS) that discusses the significance of the work in relation to the street.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Transportation

This shopping district is is north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Santa Monica Boulevard. It can be accessed by the San Diego Freeway or from Hollywood and Vine Street, depending on your current location. Street parking is available, but it is usually hard to find open spaces. There is a major municipal parking garage on Brighton Way, which is west of Rodeo Drive. There are also two public parking areas at the corner of Rodeo Drive and Santa Monica Boulevard. Additionally, free valet parking is available beneath the new Two Rodeo center. It is open to the public and offers two hours of free parking. To access this lot, drive north up Rodeo, make a right (east) turn on Dayton Way, then turn right again into the driveway to the garage. If you choose to stay longer than two hours, prices begin at $4. Transportation to Rodeo Dr. has many options. Metro buses and Metro Rapid are available and have many routes leading directly to Rodeo Drive. Tours are also common, as well as shuttles, private coaches, and car services. Rodeo Drive shopping Tour stops at places such as Tiffany's, Saks, and Barney's and many famous cafe's and restaurants. Tour maps and itineraries are available to customize your Rodeo Drive experience. </nowiki>

See duplication detector report. Really, we don't need to advertise how long you can park for free and include detailed directions to BH city parking lots, especially if it's copied from a tourism website.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits/reverts, educational assignments, sourcing, plagiarism, etc.

This is a response to these recent edits, the threads that concern them here, the message on my talk page, a couple other related user talk threads, and a distressed email I received a couple hours ago from one of the students who was working on this page the evening before an early draft of their assignment is due. Seems like it makes sense to try to centralize it. I've asked the group to hold off working on this article until we can hash out what happened today.

Pinging involved parties: @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: @Jbrubins: @Wikilaina: @Gotgomped: @JSmitty01:

First, to address two of the more serious issues that have come up

Regarding WP:WIKIHOUNDING and revenge edits: These are not built into the curriculum as it's a pretty rare occurrence anywhere on Wikipedia, but I do see one edit that appears to have been in bad faith. It does seem to be just the one, and the interactions that followed seem productive, but nonetheless a WP:CIVILITY issue and I've added it -- as part of a continued discussion of working in a collaborative environment -- to our agenda for tomorrow's class.

Regarding WP:COPYVIO: I do appreciate Alf.laylah.wa.laylah bringing up some potential copyright issues. As with any university course, we do go over plagiarism, and there's even a section about it on our course page. We've not at this point had any real talk about close paraphrasing, though, so I'm glad you brought it up. I've added a link to WP:PARAPHRASE to that course page section and will be going over the concept in class tomorrow.

Looking at some of the specific examples, the three that I see pulled out are: here, here (revised to compare to older id), and here. There are indeed some significant strings in the first few matches of each that need[ed] to be addressed, but with the possible exception of a couple sentences, I fail to see what was so egregious that it needed immediate removal on copyright grounds. Close paraphrasing comes in many shades of gray and is permitted in a number of circumstances both legally and on Wikipedia. Especially with the knowledge that this article is the subject of an assignment and is being worked on actively, I think it would be more productive to use the {{close paraphrasing}} template and to address particulars on the talk page, with perhaps a few sentences removed, reworded, or reorganized. Regardless, we will certainly be going over best practices tomorrow.

Regarding sourcing

Several of the content removals were at least in part due to being unsourced. These edits were followed by this removal of the entire works cited section as "linkspam". While some of the sources were indeed poor, not all of them were (LA Times stands out), and more importantly, nothing about this is WP:LINKSPAM. While actively engaged with the article, these editors added sources while adding content. Such a situation is what the {{No footnotes}} template is for. Some of the sources are poor, but are not cause for blanking. I find this troubling.

Forgoing more specific content comments in favor of general statements/requests

I'd like to reiterate that, as the banner at the top of this talk page indicates, this article is the subject of a current/ongoing educational assignment.

As a class we have gone over many aspects of editing and Wikipedia norms and policies, but especially at this stage (the first draft is due tomorrow), and with 54 new editors getting started in this strange environment, it's inevitable we'll run into some issues. We talk about ways to look for help and working in a collaborative environment, but when problems do arise, although student editors are subject to the same standards and rules as anyone else, it's also crucial other editors follow the standard new user policies like WP:AGF and WP:BITE, as well. Indeed, the aid, advice, and criticism from other editors is invaluable (and for that reason I appreciate the level of communication both here and on user talk pages). There are times, however, that without the tact and patience those two policies describe, the result can be destructive as well. Even more so when combined with insulting/sarcastic/dismissive edit summaries like these (which is not to say I agree or disagree with the substance of these changes):

• "(→‎Culture: rm promotional and irrelevant material)"
• "(→‎Pop Culture: rm unsourced popculture stuff. A lot of movies were filmed on any given street in LA metro area; so what? To be mentioned here they ought to be discussed in secondary sources showing relevance to this actual street.)"
• "(→‎Transportation: free valet parking? how very encyclopedic)"
• "(→‎History: who cares?)"
• "(→‎History: is that what VC & A are known for? Who wrote this nonsense?)"
• "(→‎History: Vidal himself showed up, did he?)"

Interpretation and application of AGF/BITE should be even easier in the context of an educational assignment since you can additionally be assured that (a) progress/improvements will be steady and continuous, (b) an experienced Wikipedia editor will be guiding them, (c) that the graded (and, frankly, mandatory) nature of such an assignment strongly discourages anything but good faith attempts to contribute, and (d) suggestions you make will be heard. Unless there's a BLP, vandalism, or blatant COPYVIO problem, AGF/BITE should be interpreted so as to err on the side of allowing the process of contributing and improvement to continue.

I'm going to wait for replies here, but pending the results of discussions over the next couple days, I plan to tell the students to restore and improve the content as planned (as part of moving to first draft and then to second and then to third/final in the next 6-7 weeks, implementing ever more stringent requirements and multiple forms of feedback), but also being sure to address the problems that have been raised today like close paraphrasing, inline citations, reliable sourcing, and consideration of what's undue or trivial. I hope any more specific content disputes like the list of business names, for example, will continue to be discussed here. I hope this is an acceptable path for all involved and welcome a discussion here as well as, if anyone prefers, emails on the subject. Thanks very much, and my apologies to everyone for such a long post. --Ryan McGrady (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you tell them about WP:BRD and ask them to engage on the talk page instead of telling them to reinsert material about valet parking in a serious article about an actual street and have them engage on the talk page about whether or not it's appropriate for the article? As a side note, and unrelated to discussions of content, do you require your students to release their assignments under CC-BY-SA to receive course credit? I'm genuinely interested, and maybe you'd be willing to discuss this on your talk page instead of here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: It didn't need immediate removal on copyright grounds, it needed removal on BRD grounds due to overwhelming silliness. Really, they're pasting in large chunks of material about where to park when you get to Rodeo Drive from commercial tourism sites, editing the adjectives so they can argue it's not plagiarized, as undergraduates will do, and then not discussing it on the talk page, and you tell me my edit summaries are dismissive? Why don't you explain to them the difference between history books and promotional websites? Between reliable sources and www.seeabunchoffamouspeopleinLA.com or whatever it was?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes WP:BRD is an important one to know if for no other reason than how frequently it comes up. Ditto WP:BRD misuse. You're using BRD as a blanket to justify a massive article gutting over the course of many edits, taking the many edits, sourced and unsourced alike, added by at least four users over the past few days as a cumulative "bold."
2. You mention valet parking repeatedly as though it occupied more than a handful of words out of the 11,000 or so characters you removed. Valet parting is a silly thing to have in there, yes, and so you generalize that somehow it means the article needed to be gutted "on BRD grounds due to overwhelming silliness." You're vaguewaving away accountability.
3. You say what I should do "...instead of telling them to reinsert material about valet parking...", but I felt I was pretty clear above where I said "I plan to tell the students to restore and improve the content as planned (as part of moving to first draft and then to second and then to third/final in the next 6-7 weeks, implementing ever more stringent requirements and multiple forms of feedback), but also being sure to address the problems that have been raised today like close paraphrasing, inline citations, reliable sourcing, and consideration of what's undue or trivial." I also felt I was pretty clear acknowledging that you had good points -- that there were plenty of things that needed to be fixed -- but that it didn't justify an axe and a kick in the pants. Is this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?
4. I pointed out that you made an obvious error in removing the works cited section, calling it linkspam, to retroactively justify mass removals of "unsourced" content, and your response is to say ~"yeah well, they added silly stuff."
5. I pointed to dismissive and insulting edit summaries, and you responded with ~"yeah well, they didn't talk about it on the talk page." The two are pretty obviously not equivalent. Also, they're new; you're not. And, incidentally, I see multiple threads on multiple talk pages trying to address this. People didn't respond to each one of the sections here, though, no. Again, these are new Wikipedia users. They then went to me asking what to do. I looked, saw a complex situation, and posted the message above. This is the talking on the talk page.
6. To "editing the adjectives": Stating once again, there was nothing egregious that demanded removal on copyvio grounds (a fact that you just acknowledged), and that such a situation is what the close paraphrasing tag is for.
7. I told you in at least three separate ways that I would be addressing your concerns in class. Your condescending recommendations like "Why don't you explain to them the difference between history books and promotional websites?" are not only presumptive but additional demonstrations of incivility.
8. I don't want to get into an edit war, of course. Should I presume you will undo the addition of deleted material even given the assurance that it will be improved in the next weeks? --Ryan McGrady (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't presume that. If your students want to add stuff they should explain why it should be added. If there's a reason for it that has to do with this actual street, obviously it should stay in. That's done on the talk page. You can wikilink to WP:WHATEVERYOUWANNA and it doesn't change the fact that we have 2.5K of material about a Father's day event, a street in Korea, and a copy of another article, and then 2.2K about every single store in the three blocks, which your students didn't add, and 1.6K about a bunch of random movies and TV shows that have Rodeo Drive in the background, and so on. Why should any of this stuff be in there? And please, don't try the incivility thing. It's a losing proposition all around.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, "valet parking" is metonymic for this piece of all the world's knowledge:

This shopping district is is north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Santa Monica Boulevard. It can be accessed by the San Diego Freeway or from Hollywood and Vine Street, depending on your current location. Street parking is available, but it is usually hard to find open spaces. There is a major municipal parking garage on Brighton Way, which is west of Rodeo Drive. There are also two public parking areas at the corner of Rodeo Drive and Santa Monica Boulevard. Additionally, free valet parking is available beneath the new Two Rodeo center. It is open to the public and offers two hours of free parking. To access this lot, drive north up Rodeo, make a right (east) turn on Dayton Way, then turn right again into the driveway to the garage. If you choose to stay longer than two hours, prices begin at $4. Transportation to Rodeo Dr. has many options. Metro buses and Metro Rapid are available and have many routes leading directly to Rodeo Drive. Tours are also common, as well as shuttles, private coaches, and car services. Rodeo Drive shopping Tour stops at places such as Tiffany's, Saks, and Barney's and many famous cafe's and restaurants. Tour maps and itineraries are available to customize your Rodeo Drive experience.

Do I have to mention customizing your Rodeo Drive experience, two hours of free parking, the majorness of the municipal parking garage, choosing to stay longer than two hours, the prices beginning at four dollars, turning right (east) on Dayton, and so on? I thought I was being kind by not mentioning each piece of silliness individually. Perhaps I shouldn't have been. Do we need a section for each sentence in this paragraph? Is there any reliable sourcing for any of it to show that it's relevant in any way whatsoever?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Newly added "Economy" section

massive tourist market

I took this out: "Beverly Hills has a massive tourist market, a large portion of which has to do solely with Rodeo Drive." It's almost certainly false, or else too vague to have a truth value. Is there a source for it? Is there something to indicate its relevance even if it's true?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

hotels

I took this out:

Hotels Along with luxury shopping, Beverly Hills has many luxury hotels for tourists to stay at. Hotels on and surrounding Rodeo Drive typically range from $250-$500 per person, per night. Lodging options include: The Beverly Hills Hotel, Beverly Terrace Hotel, Beverly Wilshire Hotel, Crescent Beverly Hills, Elan Hotel, Four Seasons Hotel, L'Ermitage Hotel, Luxe Hotel, Maison 140 Hotel, Montage Hotel, Mosaic Hotel, Mr. C Beverly Hills Hotel, Orlando Hotel, SLS Hotel, Sofitel Hotel, Thompson.

First, it's written in a breathless and promotional style. Yes, you say, but this can be fixed with ordinary editing. Fine. Then is there any indication that an indiscriminate list of a bunch of hotels "on or surrounding" Rodeo Drive is relevant to an article on the street? Where are sources to show that any of these hotels have any relevance to the street itself? Also, who cares how much hotel rooms cost? Is this a tourist guide we're writing? See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

food

I took this out:

Food The street boasts a large variety of restaurants and cafes ranging from a classic burger joint to local seafood to Japanese hibachi and sushi. The prominent restaurants on Rodeo Drive are 280 Rodeo, A Cow Jumped Over the Moon, McCormick & Schmick's Fish House, Pacific Seafood Grill, The Prime Grill, Urasawa. There Cafe Rodeo, La Patisserie Artistique, and Cafe 440 are cafes on the street as well where shoppers can take a break to get a cup of coffee and a sandwich or pastry.

Does the street "boast" this stuff? Same problem as above; we have breathless promotionalism. Same response? It can be fixed with ordinary editing? Sure, but again, one has to wonder what any of this have to do with the street. Also, are we telling shoppers where they can take a break now? What's the informational value of this information to an encyclopedia? See WP:NOTGUIDE.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Shopping

I took this out:

Shopping The most notable part of Rodeo Drive is the string of luxury stores and boutiques that stretch down the street and extend into the surrounding area, the “Golden Triangle.” These stores constitute the most expensive shopping district in America and make it an area of importance for the fashion industry.

Rodeo Drive is home to an extensive array of clothing and accessory stores, which include Badgley Mischka, BCBG, Bijan, Bottega Veneta, Chanel, Dior, Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi, Giorgio Armani, Gucci, Hermés, Hervé Léger, Louis Vuitton, Miu Miu, Prada, Roberto Cavalli, Salvatore Ferragamo, Tod's, Tom Ford, Tory Burch, Valentino, Versace, Yves St. Laurent. Rodeo Drive features only two luxury shoe stores, which are Jimmy Choo and Bally Shoe. Rodeo Drive has many famous jewelers including Breguet, Buccellati, Bulgari, Cartier, Chopard, Damiani, David Yurman, Harry Winston, Mikimoto, Officine Panerai, Porsche Design, Stephen Webster, Tiffany & Co., Tourbillon, Van Cleef & Arpels. Rodeo Drive is home to multiple home decor shops, which includes Bang & Olufsen, Frette, Lalique, Lladro.

Same problem as above. WP:NOTGUIDE. Why should we have an indiscriminate list of about 8% of the stores on the street? Is there any reason whatsoever to think that these particular stores are more important to list than any of the other stores? Why should we list any stores at all unless there's some indication, probably through discussion in secondary and independent reliable sources that their presence is relevant to anything. Oh, and again, WP:NOTGUIDE.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the above, since we seem to be treating it as a block

Good call. The text read as if it was from a tourist brochure rather than anything else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking this down.

@257group What's up with these sections being added without any sources or wikimarkup whatsoever? The syntax makes me think all of it was just copied/pasted from a gdoc without formatting it for Wikipedia or adding sources. Looking at the version of the article after adding the content should show that something is wrong: the sections don't show up as such and the hotels/food sections are combined into one.

Regarding the hotels and food sections: I have to agree with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah that these indeed have problems with excess information and tone of the kind that came up after class yesterday. When you're interested in a topic or just want to write about it in as interesting way as possible, it's easy to slip into the kind of tone you would use if you were, say, convincing people how great something is, what you can do there, what it has to offer, what's available, how to get around, how much things cost, the best stuff to check out, all sorts of minor but maybe interesting events and attractions, etc. It can be difficult to tell when you're doing it, too. Saying that something "boasts..." might just be a way of keeping the prose lively, but does ultimately add a positive/promotional tone that's not quite right for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are a genre of writing that must be practiced and learned just like anything else, so don't worry too much if it takes a few tries to get right. It's expected. That's why we have guidelines like Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite the Newbies to begin with...because sometimes work is well-intentioned but not quite right. When in doubt, err on the side of being boring and plain. These sections also need to indicate why they're important enough to be here (to have their own section, no less). For example, if there are articles about Rodeo Drive being a major foodie destination, citing them would help to justify talking about notable restaurants.

I disagree about the removal of the shopping section, though. WP:NOTGUIDE is not relevant for the substance of this section as fashion and luxury goods are exactly what the subject of the article is far and away best known for (such that in many cases the media treats them synecdochically). A list of notable luxury brands with a presence on Rodeo (notable meaning having a WP article) doesn't constitute an indiscriminate list or a guidebook; it's an essential part of the subject. The version of the shopping section here is a substantially edited version of the list that was here a few weeks ago, trimmed to include only those items that have Wikipedia articles and written in a short paragraph rather than a long list. I don't know that it needs to be broken down into clothing/accessories, jewelry, and home decor, but don't think that's entirely problematic either. --Ryan McGrady (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There are already stores mentioned in the history section, chosen because they've been mentioned in independent sources as being important for the development of the street as shopping district. Is there some reason to add stores that no independent source thinks are related to the subject of this article? Do you have any idea how many stores there are on Rodeo Drive? Is there some reason for mentioning the stores that were mentioned in the deleted material as opposed to the one to two hundred other stores that weren't mentioned? The list I removed was indiscriminate because there was no given principle of discrimination. Also, your claim that A list of notable luxury brands with a presence on Rodeo (notable meaning having a WP article) doesn't constitute an indiscriminate list or a guidebook; it's an essential part of the subject is problematic. Why should a notable company having a store on a street be enough to mention that store in the Wikipedia article on the street? Are you proposing that we do that for, e.g., Wilshire Boulevard as well? A mention of a store on a street should tell the reader something about the street. There's no indication that any of the stores mentioned in the section do that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should a notable company having a store on a street be enough to mention that store in the Wikipedia article on the street? [...] A mention of a store on a street should tell the reader something about the street. - The street is notable because of a particular concentration of stores, as the lead states, so yes, it tells the reader something about the street to say what those stores are. How in the world does it not?

Is there some reason to add stores that no independent source thinks are related to the subject of this article? - No independent source thinks any of them are related? I think what you mean is the more accurate but less rhetorically potent "is there some reason to add stores without citing an independent source that says they're related to the subject of the article?" In either case, by "related" you must mean something abstract, because the lead states pretty explicitly that the subject is known for its luxury-goods stores, which would make luxury-goods stores "related" to the subject. If we establish that the stores are not only related to the subject but an important aspect of the subject, then the only sourcing that would be required to include something on the list -- something that already has a Wikipedia article -- is a source that's reliable for the store's address.

Where is the list of the one to two hundred other stores that weren't mentioned, all presumably with Wikipedia articles, on the "three block stretch of the street north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Little Santa Monica Boulevard which known for its luxury-goods stores"? What I see is a reasonable list of representative stores that help to explain the content and quality of the subject. The list does not purport to be exhaustive and which you may add to if you so desire. --Ryan McGrady (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the stores that were listed but removed, out of the approximately 194 businesses in that three block stretch, are representative? Is that your personal opinion? Is it through original research that you've formed the opinion that those particular stores are somehow relevant to the article? In any case, I meant what I said. Is there any reason to put stores on here that no independent source thinks are related? I assume that since you choose to answer ionly your own weaker version of my question your answer to the original question is "no." If it's "no," then why not find sources for stores when they're added and explain, using those sources and in prose, which is what Wikipedia articles are written in, how the stores tell us something about the street (or have your students do it, I guess). As it stood, the list of stores was indiscriminate in the sense that no inclusion criteria were mentioned or (as far as I can see) used in the construction of the list. Look, if you're teaching a college class on how to decide which ritzy stores to put into articles on streets, you might as well add a lesson on how to look up stuff in a newspaper. If your students want to add eleventy-seven stores to the article, they'll certainly be able to. I've found hundreds of articles in the LA Times that talk about this or that store and why anyone should care that it's on Rodeo Drive. It's not impossible. As the guideline says, any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed. Why should we change that for this article, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you have nothing additional to add and are not responding to my previous post. Regarding your most recent selective interpretation of the rules: from WP:V: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The implication isn't just that there is no mandate to remove all uncited content, but also why not every single sentence on Wikipedia has a footnote attached to it: uncontroversial material that is obviously verifiable (i.e. that a luxury store on Rodeo Drive is "related" to Rodeo Drive, which is defined in terms of its luxury stores) does not need a cited source. You have just agreed that those sources exist. So they're verifiable. Agreeing that they're verifiable but insisting on removing them anyway and inviting them to add sources for each in order to add the content back is indefensible. Here is my prediction, though: You will ignore this, as in every previous reply, and reiterate some other complaint as though it's a direct refutation. Finally, regarding the most recent edit summary, no of course students with only fundamental knowledge to work on Wikipedia are not going to be expected to argue with someone so unusually self-certain and insistent who's just going to steamroll them, belittle them, and point to various policies as if to say "there's no argument to be had here." --Ryan McGrady (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources aren't needed for verifiability. They're needed to establish due weight, which is also a part of WP:V. We're meant to discuss inclusion criteria on the talk page and decide which criteria to use for including facts. If you're claiming that the factual presence of a store on a street is enough of a reason to mention it in an article then you're certainly mistaken, even if the street is known for having stores on it. What else is the factual presence of on Rodeo drive enough to mention? The famous people who have been spotted on the street? I've seen about thirty there. The street is known for having famous people walking on it. Can I therefore start a section devoted to famous people spotted on the street? I can certainly even find sourcing that will allow the addition of hundreds if not thousands of famous people spotted on Rodeo Drive. How about a list of novels which mention Rodeo Drive? It's known for being an iconic symbol of wealth and luxury so every mention in a novel in that context makes it relevant? Are those things relevant to understanding the street? And don't tell me I have nothing to add, I've added plenty to this article. Here's my system: I find independent sources that discuss particular stores and their relevance to the street and then I add them. You think that this is a bad system, but you don't seem to be able to see that your proposed criterion (presence on the street + WP notability = inclusion in the article) has serious problems with it. It's probably better solved with a category or something to put the stores in. I don't see why I should keep responding to your arguments in favor of it. You're not engaging with my argument either, you know. Also, if your students are so unable to discuss their contributions to Wikipedia, why are you putting them in the position of having to do so? Discussing proposed additions is part of the process, and, actually, I'm not "so unusually self-certain and insistent." I'm just editing like editing is done here. Maybe you should have thought about this before designing your class this way?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Was that so hard?

See, there's a whole newspaper article on the "Rodeo Collection," with all kinds of quotes about how singular it is because high prices, stupid city building codes, etc. etc. Kudos to Jbrubins! We know it's important, because the LA Times wrote an article about it and quoted some guy from a famous real estate firm and even mentioned it again in a whole different article later. That's how it should be done!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Concours d'Whatevers

Regarding this material. First, it's sourced to an advertising supplement, which, while certainly enough to verify its existence, doesn't tell us anything about the weight the material is due in the article. Second, looking at actual reliable sources it strikes me that while worthy of inclusion it doesn't merit an entire level three subsection which is, itself, the entire content of a level two subsection entitled "Culture." This is only arguably culture. Perhaps a level two subsection entitled something else without a level three subsection for this? Like "Annual events"? Something else?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BH and the elite whatever

Regarding this:

Beverly Hills now represents an image of a "culturally elite lifestyle."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Goode|first=T.|title=Rodeo Drive: The History of a "Street of Dreams"|journal=Journal of Architectural and Planning Research|date=1998|volume=15|issue=1|page=45|accessdate=3 April 2014}}</ref>{{clarify}}

Fine. Is it about Rodeo Drive or Beverly Hills? If the latter, why is it in here? If the former, it still doesn't make sense. It "represents an image"? What does it mean for a street to represent an image? What does it have to do with shopping on Rodeo Drive? What's the context of this article's use of the phrase "culturally elite lifestyle"? Without context it's (a) hard to understand what it means and (b) impossible to see what it has to do with shopping on Rodeo Drive.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive Walk of Style

Not really an annual event, is it? Also, since we're talking by telepathy, what do you think about the need for level three subsections for each of these things? It strikes me as giving each one too much importance. Perhaps would be better to have an all-encompassing title for the section and then just discuss them in paragraphs? I'm not sure what that title might be. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but it's not really an event, either. It's a thing with an event associated with it, like the walk of fame; what in the world should we call this section, do you think?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I know! How about put the walk of style stuff in the history section chronologically by date of establishment and then leave the other stuff in the events section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is actually an annual event celebrated around the world now in over 19 countries on the exact same day. That is extremely significant. In the fashion world this is an "Event". Our citation supports this.Wikilaina (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

List of stores

Regarding this diff. Does anyone see any reason for this page to include this massive spam-magnet of a list of stores? I sure don't. How is anyone supposed to even check it, the yellow pages? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The list of stores should be added back, because that's what the street is about for the most part. It's like a shopping mall. It doesn't make sense not to include those stores.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this point. Rodeo Drive is known for its luxury stores and they should have a place on this Wikipedia page. Jbrubins (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this argument for adding in the stores has been in discussion since 2006. I'm not sure why there is a push back on this? We would like to add them in. Please see other famous street/shopping pages such as 5th Ave and Mall of America. They have their stores listed and although it may seem touristy, this is what the street is about, period. I wish is it wasn't so simple, but it really is. People know the street for high end fashion as well as celebrities and the "lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". We would love your suggestions on how we can add this in to your standards. We want to be able to make this list. Anyone looking to visit this area of California would love to see what Rodeo Dr. has to offer before they go. I guarantee that if someone was looking up Rodeo Dr., they would appreciate Wiki listing the stores as part of its page, and expect it, just like they would for 5th Avenue. All your suggestions are noted and taken into consideration.Wikilaina (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive Committee and 1977

This: Rodeo Drive started to gain notoriety in the realm of fashion in 1977, when the Rodeo Drive Committee was created. seems dubious to me. What about Fred Hayman, what about the stores that opened before 1977? What's this taken from? It seems false to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I removed the whole sentence despite the claim that there's a source for it, because Richard Carroll himself said that the whole thing started in 1971, not in 1977. Which is it? Since I can see the source for Carroll's claim of 1971 and don't know what in the other source putatively supports 1977, I have to go with the first date until pretty solid sourcing or at least some kind of clarification is found for the other.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"even more salient fashion epicenter"

Salient: 5b. Of immaterial things, qualities, etc.: Standing out from the rest; prominent, conspicuous; often in phr. salient point. (OED) OK, I suppose a street can be salient with respect to immaterial things like "fashion epicenters," although this is a strange usage of the word "salient." But Epicenter: The point over the centre: applied in Seismol. to the outbreaking point of earthquake shocks. (OED) What's that supposed to mean with respect to fashion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Newly added Shopping section

I don't have immediate access to the source that this material is cited to, so I need some help figuring out what it's meant to be about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The most notable part

I asked for a citation for this sentence: The most notable part of Rodeo Drive is the string of luxury stores and boutiques. Really, the most notable in what sense and in what time frame? For a long time, after all, it was just a street. Even into the 1950s, not so much there. I'm not denying that there is some sense in which this is true, but what sense is it, what's the support for it, and what's the context of it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote:

"For years, shopping in Los Angeles has been synonymous with Rodeo Drive, the hip street at Beverly Hills famous for its luxury designer brands like Louis Vuitton, Bulgari, Cartier, Bally and Gucci."

Does not support the sentence. Shopping in LA may be synonymous with Rodeo Drive and still not have that be the most notable part of Rodeo drive. Furthermore, what does the word "part" even mean in this sentence? Really, you can write something true about this, but this isn't it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The most expensive shopping district in America

Regarding this: These stores constitute the most expensive shopping district in America. Again, I'm sure there's a context in which this makes sense, but as it stands it's too vague. Most expensive how? By prices for stuff? By price of stuff available? By land value? By what metric is it "the most expensive"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote, offered in support of the sentence mentioned above:

"However, there is a particular three-block section of it that has gained the attention of the entire world - or at least those who are into high fashion."

Doesn't have anything to do with most expensiveness. Either rewrite the material to conform to the source or find a source that supports the material. Anyway, this isn't a matter of a sentence needing support, it's a matter of the sentence not making sense. Even if the source said anything about the expensiveness of the shopping district, it's necessary to explain in this article what kind of expensiveness is meant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the source it's cited to, this, isn't reliable for anything. It's a tourism website; you can tell because it says bullshit like e.g. "It is no secret that many of Hollywood's biggest celebrities come to Rodeo Drive for their haute couture and accessories. Out-of-town visitors flock here, too, hoping to sneak a peek of a famous star or starlet, but there are many other reasons to come to the area, not the least of which is fine dining" If a source says stuff like that, it's not a good source to use at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, now the sentence is replaced by a quote about the most expensive names in fashion. So one can't argue with the verifiability. However, (a) the quote still makes no sense. What's an expensive name in fashion? And (b) what is it relevant to? This whole section is a hash, and this isn't helping to clarify it at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If I may...the committee was created in 1977, Jerry Magnin and George White (Bev Wilshire) whom specifically ran a campaign "designed to make everyone around the world think of Rodeo Dr. as the shopping street of the rich and famous. This is the relevance of the Street itself. Before this campaign Rodeo Dr. was just a regular street. This article comes from the New York Magazine, which is a credible source. Leaving out the importance of the creation of the street, as well as the stores, would defeat the purpose of creating this page.Wikilaina (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, except that contradicts sourced info about Fred Hayman and the street in the 60s and the fact that the guy from the committee says explicitly that the street became internationally known in 1971 when the Beverly Wilshire expanded. You might consider the possibility that, if the committee was the source for the article you're quoting, they might possibly have magnified their own roles in the process. You're seriously going to claim that, despite a lot of information to the contrary, Rodeo Drive was just a regular street until sometime after 1977 when the committee ran their campaign?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Specifically designed

About this: It was specifically designed by the Rodeo Drive Committee to cater to elite consumers and further shape the image of Beverly Hills as an international fashion destination for the “rich and famous.” What in the world does "it" mean here? It can't mean "Rodeo Drive," because the street predates the RDC by decades. Also, what are "elite consumers" and why should we care? Also, what's with the "international fashion destination"? This sentence, in addition to making no sense and making demonstrably false claims, seems to have too much promotional language. Again, I'm sure if I had the source I could figure out what's meant, but lacking that, and many of our readers will be lacking that, it's necessary to write the sentence so that someone without the source can understand it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Rather than closely paraphrasing the sources that we found, we drew out relevant information in our own words, which we did in the 15th and 16th citations and included the quotations that we found the information in. We are trying to make this a credible article with accurate information and feel that the citation supports the claim. We paraphrased the information to make one concise sentence that reflected the notability of Rodeo Drive. Do you have any other suggestions about citations? We have been applying your advice to our article, but you're giving us contradictory messages. We're working on not closely paraphrasing the information that we find, but now you are telling us that our citations aren't relevant. We were hoping to establish the notability so that we could eventually add in some of the most prominent shops. Would you mind contributing to our page with examples that we can follow? We're still trying to understand your criticisms and use them constructively. Jbrubins (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're doing fine. I listed the problems I have with the material you put into the shopping section above. Are my objections unclear? It'd be better to talk about them sentence by sentence in those sections. For shops, I think the best thing to do is like you did with that shopping center. You found an article that doesn't just mention that the shopping center is on the street, but is actually substantially about the shopping center being on the street, what's special about the shopping center, and so on. I think every article like that you can find about an actual store on the street would be totally a good enough reason to mention the store. I think it'd be best to have prose about the stores, though, so we can tell the reader why the store is important to understanding the street. Some guidance on that issue is here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Cavalli

I took this out:

Rodeo Drive is home to a number of fashion designer's stores, including [[Roberto Cavalli]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Apodaca|first=Rose|title=Cavalli's Rodeo Drive Dream|journal=Women's Wear Daily|date=18 December 2005|volume=189|issue=37|page=5|url=http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA129021223&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=100acb6e4643d12c981fe23345807ff3|accessdate=7 April 2014}}{{paywall}}</ref>

Not because it's not true and stuff, but because the article it's sourced to gives no context about Rodeo Drive other than that Cavalli loves LA and he's always wanted a store there. Leaving aside the issue of his store not being in LA, I think there's not enough to say about the street itself in this topic. Maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)