Talk:La Jolla/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Suggest renaming to La Jolla, California

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It is in San Diego and California but most of the editors commenting were not convinced that either of these facts needed to be in the article title. DrKiernan (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

La Jolla → La Jolla, California – procedural tagging of a discussion which has already been open for 11 days, without being listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This neighborhood, unlike, say Hollywood, is referred to in reliable secondary sources outside San Diego as "La Jolla, San Diego," or as "La Jolla, California."

  • NY Times: La Jolla search. Here, for example: "Mitt Romney's home in La Jolla, an enclave of San Diego"
  • Merriam Webster calls it, simply: "an NW section of San Diego, California (entry link)
  • USA Today calls its "La Jolla, California" except where the reference to San Diego is already set: USA Today search
  • Science magazine calls it La Jolla, California, except where context of San Diego/SoCal is already set. ScienceMag search
  • Scientific American calls it La Jolla, California. See Scientific American search
  • Nature call it La Jolla, California. For my search I went to nature.com, searched for "La Jolla" and filtered by marking the checkbox on "Journals : Nature" to the left.
  • The BBC calls it La Jolla, California. See [http:// www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=La%20Jolla BBC search]
  • The London time calls it mostly "La Jolla, California" and, at times, "La Jolla, San Diego." Times search
  • Wikipedia's own links largely use either "La Jolla, California" or "suburb of San Diego" unless context makes it clear the article is talking of California.

The reason I focus on science magazines is because the place has quite a few science-related institutions: UC, Scripps, Salks. La Jolla, California seems to be the internationally used name (Nature, BBC, London) and also widespread outside of California itself. Churn and change (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. "La Jolla, California" implies that La Jolla is a city; that is how American cities are styled at Wikipedia, per WP:USPLACE. But La Jolla is not a city; it is a neighborhood of the city of San Diego. All other neighborhoods of the city are styled as [[Neighborhood, San Diego]] (for example Point Loma, San Diego; Hillcrest, San Diego; etc.); accordingly, this article used to be titled "La Jolla, San Diego". Per the above Move Request Notice, a consensus was reached in December 2010 to drop "San Diego" from the article title and leave it as simply "La Jolla", on the grounds that La Jolla is sufficiently well known not to need the modifier - similar to "Hollywood". The fact that some sources incorrectly style it "La Jolla, California" is not a reason to give it a misleading title; I'm sure you can find plenty of sources for "Hollywood, California" too. La Jolla, California already exists as a redirect to this page, but that is all it should be. The article title should stay "La Jolla" as per the December 2010 consensus. It should definitely NOT be given an inaccurate title suggesting that it is a city in California. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
These are not "some" sources. These are strong, reliable, secondary soruces. Where is the data to support the statement: "La Jolla is sufficiently well known not to need the modifier"? I have produced the data to the opposite effect. The fundamental guideline is to use place names consistent with how secondary sources report them. If "Nature" and "Science" and "BBC" and "NY Times" do not think "La Jolla, California" is misleading, why do we? Churn and change (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Also try a Google Scholar search on La Jolla. It is almost invariably, "La Jolla, California." As to the 2010 consensus, 3 people supported the change, one person opposed it, and the central argument in support was the "well-known by this name" one. Churn and change (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at WP:USPLACE? How do you justify your suggestion to name this neighborhood as if it was a city, when it is not? I doubt if there is a single instance on Wikipedia of a neighborhood being named in this fashion. Either the city name is appended to the neighborhood, or nothing is appended. Certainly not the state. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole point is that La Jolla is an exception to WP:USPLACE. The question then is what is the nature of that exception. All secondary sources I can find indicate the exception is of the nature "community name, state name" with some instances of "community name, city name." The claim that just the community name alone is what secondary sources typically use to refer to La Jolla is not tenable. Churn and change (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many of the examples you cited do NOT support your proposal. For example the New York Times article you cited does not use the phrase "La Jolla, California" anywhere, and neither do any of the other hits on your New York Times search for La Jolla, that I could find. The USA Today search uses "La Jolla, California" rarely - just in a couple of sports articles. Merriam Webster does not support this usage. These Reliable Sources, which YOU cited, follow the AP style guide, as does Wikipedia. The AP style guide prescribes the usage "Name, State" for cities. Not for neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Where NY Times does not use La Jolla, California, it mentions San Diego. How many uses are there of La Jolla standalone, without San Diego or California in context, unlike, say, mentions to Hollywood? If you are arguing this should be La Jolla, San Diego, California, well, I am ok with that. What is the support for saying "La Jolla" standalone is how RSes refer to this? NY Times, MWM use La Jolla in San Diego; the science mags and the international sources use largely La Jolla, California and, at times, La Jolla, San Diego. Churn and change (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
OIC! So you are not so much arguing for La Jolla, California, but rather arguing against La Jolla as a standalone name? I would have no problem with a return to the title La Jolla, San Diego (the word "California" has been dropped from "San Diego" per USPLACE). I am neutral on a proposed move to La Jolla, San Diego, while I remain strongly opposed to La Jolla, California. OK, now that we have made our positions clear (I think), let's see what others say. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
To clarify: I prefer no move (IOW, to keep the name as La Jolla) but will go along with La Jolla, San Diego if that is the consensus here. I strongly oppose La Jolla, California which was the original proposal here. Probably not an issue as I haven't yet seen anyone else support that name. --MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no city or independent place named La Jolla, only a district or neighborhood of San Diego. Doesn't matter how many wrong sources can be dredged up to support the position; we all know that they are wrong, and we should not perpetuate the error. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
So you are not opposed to moving back to La Jolla, San Diego? Which, administratively, is what does exist. My main issue is no RSes uses La Jolla standalone outside of California. There is a qualification of either San Diego, or California or, at times, Southern California. The analogy to Hollywood and Haight-Ashbury are false, since they are often used with no further qualification outside California too. Churn and change (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to see it stay at simply "La Jolla" unless and until a very good competitor for that title comes along in English usage. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to La Jolla, San Diego this is the standard form for non-city subdivisions of large cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree A notability-based exception for La Jolla doesn't seem to be warranted; at least nobody has produced any evidence for that (standalone usage in reliable sources outside California). Churn and change (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, but I am striking out your bolded word "agree", so that it can't be misread as a second !vote for the move. As proposer here, your "agreement" with the move is already on the record.--MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no reason to argue about this all over again. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per long standing naming convention for neighborhoods and the excellent case established by the nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Question for clarity: Are you supporting a move to La Jolla, California as proposed by nom? Or a move to La Jolla, San Diego as per the rest of San Diego's neighborhoods? --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to either "La Jolla, California" and especially to the contrived "La Jolla, San Diego", primarily because either would be unnecessary disambiguation. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for La Jolla is undisputably this community (even if it's moved, La Jolla will continue to redirect here), and the most common name used to refer to this topic is "La Jolla". Yes, "La Jolla, California" is common too, but in WP using that form implies that La Jolla is a city in California, which would be misleading. "La Jolla, San Diego" is an abomination which is not commonly used in any context. If disambiguation was required, then it could be defended, but that's not the case (and yes, other San Diego communities with unique names should be titled without disambiguation as well). In short, no good reason to move. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to "La Jolla, San Diego" (assuming this is the format used by other large cities), even more important is the naming for all neighborhoods within a specific large city should ALL use the same naming format, which La Jolla article is NOT the same naming format as other neighborhoods within San Diego. More important to me is wikipedia should determine a specific naming format for neighborhoods within USA cities, then ALL neighborhood articles stick to that format, no exceptions. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding current usage at Wikipedia, that was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/November#Neighborhoods of U.S. cities. See the subsection "Current practice". I surveyed 10 of the largest cities in the U.S. and found eight of them use "Neighborhoodname, Cityname" (adding the statename when required by USPLACE). New York uses "Neighborhoodname, Boroughname". Atlanta uses parentheses: "Neighborhoodname (Atlanta)". Honolulu uses mostly just "Neighborhoodname" without the city. Most of the cities that do add the cityname have a few exceptions (like La Jolla) where the neighborhoodname alone is the title. Will Beback posted a far more comprehensive survey of neighborhood names here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/US neighborhood survey. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
For most topics we disambiguate only when necessary. For example, any film, TV series or person with a unique name has an article title with that name only. Only if the name conflicts with other uses, and is not deemed to be the primary use of that name, is it disambiguated (with "(film)", "(occupation)", etc.) Even most city articles are disambiguated only when necessary... unless they happen to be in the United States (and even then at least cities on the AP list, like San Francisco, are not disambiguated). Why should U.S. cities (and neighborhoods) get this exceptional treatment? Why is some obscure city in Hungary like Esztergom fine to not be clarified with location information, but Sacramento, California must be despite the equal uniqueness of "Sacramento"? It makes no sense. Why is adding location info to "La Jolla" justified because it's not known worldwide as just "La Jolla", but "Esztergom" is fine? That's not consistency, that's insanity.

I reject the argument for unnecessary disambiguation of US cities, and, by extension, for neighborhoods. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your feelings on this subject are well known, but this is not the place to rewrite USPLACE. The question here is whether to retain the name "La Jolla" or to add the city or state. You prefer to retain the name "La Jolla", for reasons you have explained. My analysis indicated that the name "La Jolla" is acceptable per current Wikipedia usage, i.e., that there is some precedent for having a neighborhood name as a standalone title. In other words, on this subject, we agree. Let's leave it at that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose See above closed move. No reason to move it back. There are still not any conflicting "La Jolla's" anywhere. If it was a county, city, or town that would be another matter, but it is not. Note to User:BrownHairedGirl - the above was just chit chat and did not need to be listed at WP:RM. Apteva (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is unambiguous. There is no other valid reason to lengthen the name more than what it actually is. 71.21.81.61 (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No need for "California"; the "La Jolla" is unambiguous. As well, the community known as La Jolla is within the of San Diego, making it more La Jolla, San Diego than La Jolla, California. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You already listed an oppose above. DrKiernan (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (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.

"Cross" or "Christian cross"?

Question about how to describe the Mount Soledad Cross. A user recently changed the word "cross" to "Christian cross" in two places, saying Copy editing for clarity. I changed it back to [[Christian cross|cross]] (so that it reads as "cross" but links to the Wikipedia article "Christian cross"); my edit summary was no need to emphasize "Christian" cross, which in fact is a legally debated issue; "cross" with a wikilink is a sufficient description. An IP then reverted my changed and restored the words "Christian cross", saying The object in question is described by Wikipedia, is a "Christian cross". The Wikipedia page for "Cross" is not this item. Reverted for consistency.

I'm bringing the question here for discussion. Should it read "Christian cross", or should it read "cross" with a wikilink to "Christian cross? --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: let's call it a Latin cross. More descriptive than "cross" as to its form, and less frought than "Christian cross". Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the anonymous revert, I didn't realize I had not logged in until after I'd committed it. The cross was known, up until its ex post facto renaming and building upon as a memorial, as the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross". It is clearly Christian, the legal issue of whether the cross is Christian has been resolved with the most recent court ruling. People in everyday life, and on Wikipedia, acknowledge that shape universally as a Christian symbol, dodging the word "Christian" feels like an attempt to reinforce the legally failed argument that it's somehow secular. KILNA (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Undue Weight?

Over half of the History section of this article is devoted to Antisemitism which seems excessive. This Antisemitism section appears to put undue weight on a single historical issue while all other historical issues, events, people, locations, architecture, time periods, etc. are either quickly mentioned or ignored in the article. This is in violation of Wikipedia's "undue weight" policy. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight )

The Antisemitism section states that these types of "'restrictive covenants' were once fairly common throughout the United States." Other history of La Jolla should be greatly expanded or the Antisemitism section should be edited down to the size of other similarly significant sub-sections.

Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources

Wikipedia policy states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

This Antisemitism section and its cited sources make exceptional claims of a long term and widespread secret conspiracy. Personally I believe that antisemitism occurred in La Jolla because someone I trusted told me so. But the sources cited have apparent conflict of interests such as religious journals and legal opinions which are less than the multiple unbiased high-quality mainstream sources required by Wikipedia standards for exceptional claims.

This American Jewish Historical Society booklet has been the only original source for all of the sources cited (Jewish Journal article, La Jolla Historical Society exhibit and the La Jolla Light articles) in this Antisemitism sub-section. This whole section seems to be relying on one original source that could be considered to have a conflict of interest since it is reported religious discrimination published by a religious organization (American Jewish Historical Society). I really do hope that there are more original sources or this whole antisemitism sub-section may need major editing. I still believe that there was antisemitism in La Jolla but other than this potentially biased American Jewish Historical Society source we need to find some extraordinary sources to substantiate this extraordinary claim of widespread long term antisemitism in La Jolla. Harpervi (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible Edits

This paragraph about the world-renown mathematician Jacob Bronowski, while very interesting, should be removed because it does nothing to prove that longterm and widespread antisemitism occured in La Jolla which is the point of the section.Harpervi (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC) In fact, it is a common practice even today for clubs and organizations to require Letters of Recommendation from prospective members. The San Diego Yacht Club is a local example of such Letter of Recommendation requrement. http://www.sdyc.org/about/membership_process Maybe the contributor of this story can cite reliable sources proving that non-Jewish usually did not have to provide Letters of Recommendations. The source provided for this story about Jacob Bronowski states at the end of the article that its research came from the booklet by Mary Ellen Stratthaus titled "Flaw in the Jewel: Housing Discrimination against Jews in La Jolla" published by American Jewish Historical Society. Maybe this original source has more facts to prove this was actually a case of antisemitism. http://www.webcitation.org/5quH6gLRG Harpervi (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In the La Jolla Light article (page B1) dated April 4, 2013, the La Jolla Historical Society Executive Director, Heath Fox, is quoted extensively about the additions and changes he made to the current La Jolla Historical Society exhibit, Home of your Dreams: La Jolla from 1887 through the 1920s. In March 2013, La Jolla Historical Society Executive Director Heath Fox discussed the hushed anti-semitism directed at Jews in La Jolla for over 75 years, both by residents and real estate agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightmanschool (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I found the La Jolla Light article mentioned above... http://www.lajollalight.com/2013/04/07/addendum-to-la-jollas-early-history-exhibit-at-historical-society-explains-the-towns-once-exclusionary-housing-policies/

The article only has one quality source, a booklet by Mary Ellen Stratthaus titled "Flaw in the Jewel: Housing Discrimination against Jews in La Jolla" http://www.webcitation.org/5quH6gLRG (Maybe some of the sources in this booklet can be verified further.)

Below are some quotes from another article in the La Jolla Light questioning if the secret conspiracy of antisemitism was as widespread as reported by only a few...

The La Jolla Light, Thursday, April 07, 2005 By Will Carless http://www.webcitation.org/5quGq3ONG

"...Nobody can say for certain whether La Jolla was a community that was largely anti-Semitic or racist well into the 1960s, or if those feelings were shared only by a few. The memories of those who lived here at the time are all too easily tainted by the rose-tinted lens of nostalgia or the torque of their personal politics...

...Many historians, commentators and journalists have dipped their brushes into the increasingly scant pools of memory and archives to reveal their version of what the discrimination and stereotypes of the time looked like. Unfortunately, such accounts all too often reveal the preconceptions of their authors. While they abound with sweeping statements about the anti-Semitic nature of La Jolla in days past, they often come up short in terms of evidence that it was a widely held prejudice..."Harpervi (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I discovered one article from that does have a conflict of interest being published by the Southwestern Jewish Press dated February 6, 1953 by Alice Craig Greene but if her original interviews with La Jolla real estate agents are accurate then this would be earlier historic evidence that antisemitism in La Jolla was widespread. http://www.sandiegojewishworld.com/2008-SDJW/20080330-jewish-sunday77.html#fromarchives High-quality mainstream sources still need to be cited. If anyone has photos of the "gentile only" signs or brochures from La Jolla, please share links to them. If these can be verified through high-quality mainstream sources then maybe a wikipedia page for this topic can be created to present the historic details.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpervi (talk • contribs)

Harpervi, please don't assume bias on the part of other editors. This antisemitism section has been in the article for far longer than it has been cited in the Cross controversy (it's news to me that it is even considered relevant in that case). The importance of antisemitism in La Jolla related to the establishment of UCSD there, and it was made an issue by the first chancellor. I do agree that some of the excessive detail (porch lights, really?) could be trimmed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. I have edited my posts to not assume bias from any editor. Thanks for pointing that out. If the subsection could be trimmed down with high-quality mainstream sources added then I think it would be fine. Harpervi (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on that entire History section as I have time over the next few days. The "timeline" format is less than ideal, it should be converted into prose. There should be a paragraph or subsection devoted to UCSD; perhaps the "antisemitism" material could be incorporated into that since it was relevant at the time. There should be a paragraph about the Cross, or at least a reference. Quite possibly a subsection about the contributions made by Ellen Browning Scripps. What else do we need to make a proper history section? --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As for the importance (or not) of antisemitism in La Jolla, I searched the archives of the San Diego Historical Society and I did find a few references to the practice, but all of them cite the same source: the 1996 "Flaw in the Jewel" article. That source was also cited by the La Jolla Light, as you mentioned. So apparently historians and journalists do take that article seriously as a Reliable Source, but it seems to be the only such source, and so IMO it should not hold such a dominant role in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on a complete rewrite of the section. Give me a few days. (Under construction at User:MelanieN/sandbox). --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There! I just posted a complete rewrite of the History section. Phew! Additions, corrections and copy editing are welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Great job! --B2C 19:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the hard work. Harpervi (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I started the "Antisemitism" section a few years ago, and am responsible for most of its content (edited under an ip). I lived very close to La Jolla and heard from a friend about the antisemitic housing practices that previously existed in La Jolla, including a far-fetched story of a "pink wall" on one side of which Jews could not live. I was inspired to do research to find out if there was any truth to these claims, and ended up adding my findings to the La Jolla Wiki page, as they were not enough to justify their own article.

I was new to Wikipedia at the time, so my sources may not have been flawless, but I promise my only intention was to inform. However, it is clear from the sources that you found acceptable that housing discrimination did take place, so I would hardly call it an exceptional claim, much less one that's part of a conspiracy to mislead or misinform. If it's generally agreed upon that the truncations improve the article, then so be it. —Strachkvas (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for adding this section initially, and I think we have retained the "meat" of it. The main problem was that it was almost the ONLY thing in the La Jolla History section (not your fault; other people's fault for not contributing more history). As a result, the history section overemphasized antisemitism and did not provide any context. La Jolla has a long and interesting history, of which antisemitism forms a part; I hope we have it in proportion now. And I hope you will continue to contribute material to the article as you see fit. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me add my thanks to Strachkvas for starting mention of antisemitism in La Jolla. I added some to this section before it was edited out. I think what I can do is re-add some as part of a citation, to keep this article in balance. I think this for two reasons. First I edit the article on Minneapolis which was featured for years before anybody bothered to add antisemitism (and there is a very good source as there is for La Jolla). Second I'm old enough to have been a television viewer of Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. Pardon me for saying that he and his show are just as significant and encyclopedic as this whole article about La Jolla. He was that good. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Failed verification" tag

I am removing the "failed verification" tag from the sentence in the "Antisemitism" section about Congress outlawing restrictive covenants. The cited source actually does support the information. It's true that the source is about something else, namely, a bill in California to allow people to remove restrictive language from their deeds. But the article also states, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1948 that states could not enforce racially restrictive covenants in housing. Twenty years later, Congress outlawed them in fair housing legislation." --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I'd like input about the new photo in the infobox. A few days ago I replaced that photo--which appeared to be yet another blurry shot taken with a cell phone camera from the window of a passing airplane--with one that actually showed a unique part of the city.

  • I added this
    I added this
  • Was reverted to this
    Was reverted to this

My edit was reverted, and the photographer left this message on my talk page explaining that he had spent $4,001,200. to get that shot, and warned me not to revert any more of his edits.

Aside from my concern that Wikipedia is not a repository of images, and that editors do not own articles, is my concern that "images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information", and "editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety" in the images they select, per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. As well, this article has had blurry shots from airplane windows in its infobox since 2011. My feeling is that photos taken from airplane windows, such as this or this, show nothing of the beautiful cities they are taken of--no buildings, people, or historic sites--and offer just a boring one-dimensional view, as can be seen at Newport Beach, California. Perhaps that's the reason some editors have started adding a link to Google satellite view, such as at North Beach and Fragosa Beach, where shots from above are of much higher quality than can be taken from a passing plane. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted your addition of a street scene to the infobox and said that IMO the infobox picture should be a panorama. To me an overall picture gives a far better understanding of the subject that a picture of a random street. As for your rude dismissal of the panorama shots, I see nothing to justify them. Your repeated (but unsourced) claim that the two panorama shots were taken on cell phones seems unlikely, given the quality of the photos; they are certainly not "blurry", they are in fact quite crisp. I also think it's virtually impossible that they were taken from a "passing airplane". I have often taken off from or landed in San Diego via commercial aircraft, and there would be no way to get that particular angle of photo from a commercial aircraft. As I said when I reverted, your picture of an unidentified street could be used elsewhere in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Please do not misrepresent what the photographer said on your talk page. He did not claim that he had spent $4 million to get the shot; he said it was taken from the cockpit of a $4 million plane. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on La Jolla. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Jolla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Affluent"'

About the word "affluent" in the lead to describe La Jolla: the word has been there for a long time, and it can be sourced. But removing it is based on this recent RfC], which concluded that terms like "affluent" or "poor" should not be used to describe communities. See additional discussion about applying this at Talk:Beverly Hills, California. --MelanieN (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that "affluent" has been re-added. I personally never had any problem with that description - which is used by many reliable sources - and I can't now find the recent RfC. So I'm going to leave it there unless someone comes up with evidence that it is against consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I see there has been edit warring over this. I can see no reason for deleting the word "affluent", although I removed "very" as overkill. Multiple sources have been added - way more than would normally be accepted in a lede sentence - and no real argument has been presented for deleting it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN for bringing our attention to this section on the talk page. I agree "very" is overkill; I only included it because Magnolia677 seemed to be insisting that we had to follow sources literally, and I found a source for "very affluent". In any case, now John from Idegon has reverted "affluent" with only this comment, "RV PUFFERY. Let the facts speak for themselves", and apparently with no knowledge of the history of this word in this article. --В²C ☎ 23:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, "affluent" is not WP:PUFFERY, at least not in this case. It's a well-sourced factual description of the community commonly used to describe it, just like "coastal", as demonstrated by the cited sources. --В²C ☎ 23:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The "affluent" issue comes up a lot on Wikipedia. The word is certainly descriptive, like "ghetto" or "snazzy", but an encyclopedia really should be "just the facts". MOS:WTW addresses this. Articles should use numbers and factual details to convey information, even though it may sound less erudite. A factual "there are more millionaires per mile" would benefit readers much more. Also, in my experience editing Wikipedia I've discovered that a reliable source can be found to support almost anything. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The aforementioned RfC is here. The above example "coastal" is a poor choice for comparison. There is absolutely no ambiguity in what coastal means - it means "on the coast." What is the quantifiable definition of "affluent"? Obviously someone equates it with wealthy, as one of the many references used that term and not affluent, and several of the references showed indication of wealth without ever once using the term "affluent". Is it measured by median home value? Median household income? Median income? Bentleys per square mile? There is no answer, because there isn't a quantifiable definition. To some of our readers, indoor plumbing may be an indication of affluence; to others, the inability to fly to Paris for dinner might indicate a lack of it. It's most assuredly PUFFERY, as it is a word that sounds good without conveying any factual information (or is that PEACOCK? Neither are encyclopedic, so if I mispoke, it's irrelevant). It does not serve our readers to tell them what to think. Give them the numbers and let them conclude as they will. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally I have always supported "affluent," since the term is almost always appended to La Jolla by neutral reliable sources ("La Jolla, an affluent community in San Diego..."). It has been included in this article for many, many years. I understand the concern expressed at the RfC, about real estate brokers adding it to the article for promotional purposes. That is not the case here, since the people adding it are longtime respected editors (in which class I modestly include myself as well as B2C and many others over the years) acting in good faith. Nobody here has a COI reason for wanting to include it; we just think is a defining characteristic of the community, essential for understanding the subject and its role in the area, in a way that was not the case for Sherman Oaks as per the RfC. I know that you, User:John from Idegon, are a longtime crusader against this term, almost no matter how essential it may appear to be in understanding the subject. I reject the argument we mustn't use the term because it is not defined; it is not up to us to determine whether La Jolla really IS affluent by some metric (which would be WP:OR), only to reflect that reliable sources universally call it that. But the bottom line is that Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and I bow to the consensus in the RfC (thank you for the link). I have reluctantly concluded we should leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That RFC does not necessarily apply here. If nothing else, we can recognize per WP:IAR that La Jolla is a special case because ... "it is not up to us to determine whether La Jolla really IS affluent by some metric (which would be WP:OR), only to reflect that reliable sources universally call it that", a consideration not given in the RFC. That said, given the RFC, we probably should establish a consensus to make that exception for this article on this talk page, and we don't have that, at least not yet. --В²C ☎ 18:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I oppose use of non-factgiving words in general, but especially in ledes. One could easily say both currently and historically, that Cleveland, Washington, DC, and Gary, Indiana are "predominantly black" cities and find plenty of sources that say that too. We don't say that, and we shouldn't, as it adds no encyclopedic value. The information is there, people can see it. We are not hiding anything. And to use it opens doors that don't need to be opened. Beverly Hills was mentioned above. There was some discussion of how if Beverly Hills isn't "affluent", no place is. Well, Beverly Hills is not in the top 100 nationally for either median household income or median home value. It is a commonly held misconception that Beverly Hills represents "affluence". If we knew what affluence was, I would think that ad argumentum La Jolla would probably be that. Something could actually be state-of-the-art, too, but that is a word that we probably shouldn't use because of the combination of its vagueness and the high probability of misuse. Using ill defined terms leads to misconceptions, some of which endure. That's how Columbus came to "discover" America. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Good news. We no longer have to describe this place using just the word "affluent" (though really this place is "uber" affluent). La Jolla (pronounced "la hoya") has many other descriptive words and phrases we can add to the article with sources:
  • This source says La Jolla has "a lot of natural charm" and that "everything in La Jolla is first rate".
  • This source calls it a "homeless person's paradise".
  • This source was cited in the article because it indirectly refers to locations near La Jolla as "less afflent". However, it directly describes La Jolla as "quaint" and "wealthy".
  • This source calls the place "swanky" and "upscale".
  • This source infers that La Jolla is "snobby".
  • This source calls the place "rich", "quirky", "intriguing", "a haven for old folks", an "urban fantasyland", "rich", and "off-kilter". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As you noted previously, you can find a source to say just about anything. The key is to consider how most or many sources describe the topic in question (and this applies to any topic on WP, not just places). I think "affluent" with this respect to this topic clears that bar. These other words... not so much. --В²C ☎ 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

SEE ALSO: #"Wealthy", way up on this Talk page. --В²C ☎ 20:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

When is La Jolla not La Jolla?

There are several references in this article to buildings and institutions that are actually located east of I-5, in University City - and thus not in La Jolla by any formal designation - and yet are considered to be part of La Jolla by many people. Examples: La Jolla Country Day School, and the Mormon Temple (whose wikipedia page only says that it is "near" La Jolla).

I know there have been arguments about UCSD (which I believe is clearly in La Jolla - that was even its original name). But how do we deal with things that have a mental or traditional connection to La Jolla, but aren't actually there?

--MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

In the absence of a response, I clarified that La Jolla Country Day is not really in La Jolla (I thought the name made it reasonable to mention it in the article), and I deleted the Mormon Temple. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
It seems to me that the only area east of I-5 that is part of any definition of La Jolla is north of LJ Village Drive, west of Regents, and south of Genesee, thus including La Jolla Scripps Memorial hospital and the eastern part of UCSD over there, but not LJ Country Day. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
But LJCDS' official address is 9490 Genesee (or Regents now after all that reconstruction) in La Jolla 92037. So even if it's not geographically in La Jolla, it kind of is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.186.133 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a small detail, but a citation should be included in a couple of sections so that we can verify where the information is coming from including the paragraph on Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the first paragragh of the Early History of La Jolla SarahK86 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on La Jolla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Jolla/Archive_3&oldid=1145605646"