Talk:South Gate, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Notability issues

dont list yourself as a notable resident unless you have a significant achievement that is worthy of a wikipedia enry. use myspace.com or something else if you want to write your own bio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danedouard00 (talk • contribs) .

in response to question by asbl "How can anybody who does not have their own Wikipedia article be listed here as 'notable')"?: there persons were notable in the development of the city of south gate. the fact that a wikipedia article _currently_ does not exist does not mean they should be eliminated from the notables list. I volunteer to put together the initial revision to their articles. please put them back on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.0.84.212 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia has clear guidelines on notability. Although the three individual in question have certainly been important in the development of the city, I do not think they rise to the levels specified in here. --Asbl 23:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bigoted point of view

an anonymous user deleted most of the scandal and corruption section because it was considered bigoted POV. please discuss issue here:

the recent scandal and corruption has received nation-wide publicity and clearly adds to the notability of south gate, ca. as mentioned in the section, recent political developments have nearly bankrupted the city. most if not all facts are referenced in the the notes section and i cannot identify editorializing comments. the tone of the entire section is 'matter of fact'.

anonymous user: please tell us your thoughts on why this section comes from bigotry. danedouard00 16:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete "most" of that section—I just deleted the two paragraphs that I thought did not meet Wikipedia policies or standards (out of six total paragraphs). I didn't even delete every reference to biased articles from highly POV publications, although I should have. I was planning to come back and reference the same points from Associated Press articles or other more neutral sources, but I didn't have the time yesterday, I won't have the time tonight, and probably won't have enough time to do it right for at least a week, so some other Don Quixote will have to tackle that task. (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Wikipedia policy on that issue.)

I did delete one paragraph that was mostly about a "bizarre" and salacious detail because the Wikipedia is not Wikinews, nor The National Enquirer, nor Maxim. (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)

I also deleted the paragraph that included the highly prejudicial description "...Third World Politics in Hispanic-dominated regions in the United States", because it was putting tar and feathers on most Latino politicians in the US. Shall I give you a list of all the White Republican politicians, lobbyists, and CEOs that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, betraying the public's trust, and have been sent to the slammer during this last year or are still under investigation? Do you think that I could get away with calling them pasty-faced politicians with helmet hair or bad comb-overs?

I used to do estimating for and help manage a small construction company in the LA area. Almost every small town in the L.A. Basin has at least small problems with mordida. Mostly it was small potatoes—usually something like a nice bottle of Scotch discretely given to an building inspector during holidays that would make things run more smoothly. There were, however, two White-majority cities that we refused to do business in because of this 'cost of business'.

The above is Wikipedia:Original research, but let's look at some recent Southern California political scandals: It's been Latino politicians in South Gate, a Black politician in Compton, a White guy in Lynwood, a White guy in Vernon (where it looks like his family has been doing roughly the same thing as Albert Robles, but for decades longer), a couple of White politicians in Huntington Beach (including one White female, so it's not all guys), etc.

No, I'm not trying to minimize what Albert Robles did. IMHO, He's a dirty rotten scoundrel who will probably end up in the Ninth circle of Hell. I'm just trying to make the article meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to be truly encyclopedic. 4.232.105.95 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first paragraph, but I do agree that The American Renaissance is definitely NOT a reliable source.--Rockero 07:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The bizarre incident was notable because it made many publications mainly via the associated press affiliates and editorials. it's also notable because it's not an everyday occurence that a mayor of a United States city punches a councilman at a city council meeting

FACT: The "third world politics" is used in both left and right publications (i added another reference by a generally leftist pundit). making note of the facts is NOT bigoted POV.

The American Conservative article for the most part covers Robles' history; all of the facts can be cross-referenced to other sources but this article does the best job summarizing his career.

BTW I am Hispanic and have lived in South Gate in the past and I am not personally offended by the "Third Word Politics" phrase. There is definitely a difference in the way politics are conducted in Hispanic-majority regions and it is worth noting, whether or not it is completely characterized or not.. danedouard00 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the (rather verbose) anon editor. To suggest that some of Albert Robles' tactics in South Gate were similar to those often used by the PRI in Mexico is clearly backed by the facts (and the Sherry Bebitch Jeffe and Richard Marosi articles). On the other hand, the Sherry Bebitch Jeffe article clearly shows that other non-South Gate Hispanic politicians and well as South Gate citizens of all ethnicities were clearly fighting the South Gate corruption. So to write "...as a example of a growing sphere of Third World Politics in Hispanic-dominated regions in the United States" is an extrapolation from a single data point without any supporting evidence in the references. I am deleting that paragraph. You can rewrite the paragraph so that it just refers to Third World Politics in South Gate if you want.

I have not deleting the paragraph about the "bizarre incident". However, since no charges were filed that paragraph is basically a news story that doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. ^BlankVerse 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"the growing sphere... in Hispanic-dominated regions of the United States" part of the statement is integral to two of the references. However, I will strike that part since it is not a conclusion of the two other references which are less editorializing. danedouard00 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The American Renaissance (magazine) is a fringe publication and should not be used as a source. -Will Beback · † · 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There are at two editors here who've expreseed the opinion that AmRen should not be used as a source. I don't see any defense of it here. Why has it been re-added so many times? -Will Beback · † · 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what I'm tired of restoring. Just keep in mind that to make note of controversial material you usually have to cite some controversial source or some more reputable source that itself cites controversial sources. Example: List of ethnic slurs. To make note of controversial material is not always unencyclopaedic (sp?). I still say if you can't deal with the facts don't fn read encyclopedia articles. danedouard00 01:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me about several Wiki editors (and by extension, articles) is their varying standards. several of them produce or defend various unsources statements that are laced with POV yet when they encounter a sourced statement that doesnt jive with their understanding/beliefs/agenda/values, they (move to) strike. These editors usually center around ethnic/nationalistic themes. Please examine yourselves and be consistent with your standards.danedouard00 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)