Talk:The Mountain Beverly Hills

Disputed update

@Roxy the dog: Roxy, you have now reverted my edits twice. I see your link to WP:NOTNEWS, but I believe you are applying that rule far too stringently and unconstructively here. If that rule were followed to the letter, hardly any wikiarticles about current events, places, people, or things would ever be updated. I am a veteran editor with more than 12 years of experience here, and I believe any other neutral, experienced editor would agree that my addition to this stub article was appropriate and reliably sourced.

I have never been in an edit war, but, in my view, your reverts are an outrageous misuse and misapplication of Wikipedia policies that would deny readers reliable and appropriate information on this topic - one which, by the way, I have no particular interest in, and never heard of before today. I will not get into a long game of words or edit war with you, but before I take the next steps in dispute resolution, I am willing to hear your justification for your reverts on this talk page. Textorus (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is sufficient justification for my edit. We are an encyclopaedia, not a Beverly Hills Gossip Sheet. -~@Roxy, the dog. wooF -Roxy, the dog.

@Roxy the dog:: The Los Angeles Times, which I quoted in my edit and provided an inline citation to, is hardly a "gossip sheet." Furthermore, my edit provided factual information about legal and financial matters, not "gossip," that is highly relevant to the subject of this wikiarticle. My edit is also timely; and encyclopedias do indeed update their contents when new and relevant information becomes available on any given topic. Your objection to my edit is therefore inappropriate and unreasonable, to say the least.

Now that you have stated your justification, I will be taking this issue up the ladder of dispute resolution. Textorus (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I've never edited this article before, and have never even heard of The Vineyard Beverly Hills until just now. The article is about an expensive plot of undeveloped land. The first and only paragraph outlines its economic and title history. Presumably, these are the only facts that make the plot of land notable. By extension, the latest information about economics and title is just as essential and appropriate to the article. The LA times is generally considered a reliable source and certainly would be in this context. The citations for the previous paragraph come from newspaper and magazine articles. So the LA times should be able to be used for the second paragraph. WP:NOTNEWS does not appear to apply. The information is not breaking news. The auction was reported last week in the wall street journal [1]. The actual sale is a matter of public record, so this is presumably not original reporting. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean we should never use newspapers as sources. If it did, this entire article would be up for prod. I would suggest rewording the facts, instead of using a direct quote, and avoid using the word "ballooned". That sort of word belongs in a newspaper but not an encyclopedia. It would read better if the facts were laid chronologically. Start with Dickens buying the property and ending in the foreclosure sale. -- Work permit (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

---- Work permit (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful response, Work permit. I agree that this stub article might be rewritten in a more chronological way, but the issue right now is whether any updated, reliably sourced information may be added to the article.

So @Roxy the dog: are you willing to live with the outcome of this Third Opinion and stop deleting my "essential and appropriate" edit? Or must I keep going up the ladder of dispute resolution? Textorus (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly I agree with the outcome. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)POST MODIFIED to show outcome. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Work permit. If it's acceptable for the article to include vague mentions of past owners of the site, it's surely acceptable to include a well-referenced statement explanation of who the current owner is. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The article history suggests that Work Permit doesn't actually think that any more! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Say what? Your last comment makes no sense to me, Roxy. But if you do sincerely agree with the outcome of this discussion, I will replace my edit as it was, and we can move on from here without further discussion. However, continued attempts at blocking good-faith contributions to this article by other editors - as it seems from the article history page that you have already done with two other editors in this month of August - would surely attract the attention of admins for disruptive editing.

And thank you, Maproom, for you helpful, observant comment. Textorus (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the article at all, recently? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I fully support adding the material. I think you have misunderstood my article edit. The issue seemed so clear I went head and reverted your revert after giving my 3rd opinion. Then I thought it would be better to wait to hear from you, to see you had any additional reason for your reversion. So I undid the edit. That is what I meant in my edit description to wait a day.---- Work permit (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that was very confusing, I'm sorry I misunderstood that you believe that edit to be acceptable, but it certainly didn't look that way when you removed it. Fortunately, the article is protected at "the right version". -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record: A few minutes ago I reposted my original contribution to this article, believing per Roxy's comments above, as well as on his own talk page, that he had agreed not to revert me again. But he just did so, in contradiction of his own words. I will be reporting this disruptive editing to the Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. Textorus (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest you carefully re-read the edit histories of this page, and the article page, taking particular care to note the various timestamps of the edits on both pages, and then and only then, amend your innaccurate comment above. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: We have three editors (Maproom, Textorus, and Work permit) who support adding the disputed content. I've laid out my reasoning. Could you please lay out yours, specifically elaborating on your comment WP:NOTNEWS is sufficient justification for my edit. Thanks. ---- Work permit (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this -

Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.

1. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
2. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
3. A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I believe we are aware of the standard. Is that all you have to say on the topic?---- Work permit (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

The current title is confusing. I thought that this was about one of The Vinyard churches.

Changing the title to something like The Beverly Hills Vineyard would make it less confusing. Are quotes allowed, as in The Beverly Hills "Vineyard"? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a move, but it hadn't occurred to me that such a problem exists. I'm personally very interested in how the area got it's name in the first place. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The correct process is WP:RM#CM for a title change. Izno (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am setting the answered parameter back to "no" pending evidence that my move request is in any way controversial or potentially controversial. WP:RM#CM says:

"The move is potentially controversial if any one of the following applies:

there is an existing article at the target title (not just a redirect with no other page history);

there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;

someone could reasonably disagree with the move.:

I don't believe that any of the three listed criteria are true. I invite anyone who disagrees with my proposed move to please discuss your objections now. I did check the sources, and "Beverly Hills Vineyard" and "Vineyard Beverly Hills" are about equally used, with the most commonly-used name being "The Vineyard". So maybe the rename should be to "Vineyard (Beverly Hills property)"?

BTW, there exists a cabernet in bottles labeled "90210" with grapes are sourced from Napa. One source says "The Noval family hopes to blend Napa grapes those from their own vineyard, so the wine can be advertised as having come from 'the most exclusive undeveloped land in America'." Not sure if there are grapes growing on the property or just plans to plant some. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That the article is (move-)protected I took as prima facie evidence that any change to the title would be potentially controversial at this time (the third bullet). You are free to a) begin a move request discussion, or b) wait the three days for the protection to end so that you can move the page yourself. (There is a third option wherein you request a technical move, but I suspect a reasonable processing-administrator would come to the same conclusion I did.) I have no personal objection, but regardless, the correct way to request a move is to use the re-titling process, not the edit-protected process. --Izno (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That aside, given your uncertainty as to the best title, a move request may be best to draw attention from the users most familiar with how we title our articles. Changing the title is not so critical that it needs to be done now. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The Vineyard Beverly Hills → The Mountain Beverly Hills – The existing name is confusing; it sounds like one of the many churches in the Association of Vineyard Churches. The name on the official webpage is "The Mountain Beverly Hills". The Los Angeles Times (2019 story) calls it "the famed Mountain of Beverly Hills". (The Hollywood Reporter and LA Weekly called it the Vineyard in 2015, so we can put "Formerly The Vineyard" in the lead.) Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.