Talk:Tenderloin, San Francisco, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 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.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.


I removed this quote from the text as the Barbary Coast referred to another part of town in the 19th century.

Contents

[edit] Quotes

"...the haunt of the low and vile of every kind. The petty thief, the house burglar, the tramp, the whoremonger, lewd women, cut-throats and murderers, all are found there. Dance-houses and concert saloons, where bleary-eyed men and faded women drink vile liquor, smoke offensive tobacco, engage in vulgar conduct, sing obscene songs, and say and do everything to heap upon themselves more degradation, unrest and misery, are numerous. Low gambling houses thronged with riot-loving rowdies in all stages of intoxication are there. Opium dens, where heathen Chinese and God-forsaken women and men are sprawled in miscellaneous confusion, disgustingly drowsy, or completely overcome by inhaling the vapours of the nauseous narcotic, are there. Licentiousness, debauchery, pollution, loathsome disease, insanity from dissipation, misery, poverty, wealth, profanity, blasphemy and death are there. And Hell, yawning to receive the putrid mass, is there also.
— B. E. Lloyd, refering to the Barbary Coast

- Trick 02:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How it got its name

I've lived in the SF area for 35 years, and had numerous friends in the Tenderloin, and working for local community groups. The "police can afford to eat tenderloin" origin is considered folklore at best. The more likely origin is a reference to the older NYC district with similar characteristics, or a similar naming as the "soft underbelly" of the city with reference to vice, graft, and corruption. --MCB 20:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I removed the reference to the confusing and obscure "labor districts" in the first paragraph. They have no currency outside organized labor and are never used in a general (tourist, business, etc.) context. In any case the neighborhood was not "named for" them; it's the other way around. --MCB 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 69.33.230.212 is enforcing his/her sensiblities in the form of censorship

tenderloin.net has been photo-documenting the tenderloin district of san francisco long before wikipedia was a gleam in kovitz & sanger's collective eye. this link has been part of this page since 14 dec. 2004.

tenderloin.net may have graphic photos but all content is non-sexual and everything is real.

some of the photos include editorial commentary which people may disagree with but no images are photoshopped or manufactured. all photos are genuine and can speak for themselves. tenderloin.net is a photographic observation of the tenderloin district of san francisco in its natural state.

i suggest everyone look at 69.33.230.212's history of contributions to the wikipedia project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.33.230.212

rather than adding content and expanding wikipedia, 69.33.230.212 has added two words to the wikipedia entry for Rent_(musical) and the remainder of this individual's "contributions" are limited to removing the tenderloin.net link from this page.

69.33.230.212 should spend more time exploring wikipedia and deciding if wikipedia content like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VaginalOpening.jpg

are as "offensive" as the images presented by tenderloin.net.

--

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein (Strength to Love, 1963)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre, referring to Voltaire)

[edit] Commercialism & Site Added by It's Owners and Promotes

FROM WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES What should not be linked to:

  1. 1 In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
  2. 2 Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
  3. 3 Sites that primarily exist to sell products.

The Tenderloin.net website does not provide a unique resource beyond the article.

The Tenderloin.net is a link that has been added by the site's owners and promoters themselves, since 14 dec, 2004. (Longevity of linking doesn't trump the guidelines.)

The Tenderloin.Net website is a website that seeks to sell a video called bumfights and really just a page away from the commercial website. Their interest in linking to this page seems to be that of commercial interest only. I am not enforcing my sensibilities on anybody. The wikipedia guidelines plainly state that they wish to write about what is offensive, but not to be offensive. Defend your spam in whatever form you feel is needed. Whatever helps your company sell videos, I guess.

www.tenderloin.net - Is a splash page and link to sell "Bumfight Videos". There are plenty of liquour stores in the Tenderloin also, should there be a link to Beer companies. Plenty of Adult Bookstores, should there be a link to each porn publisher. I guess by this logic, it would be the case. Hey, even Albert Einstein would aprove - or so it would seem.

I contributed a fair amount to the existing article, although under a different IP address and I live in the Tenderloin. Does that make me more or less qualified? Neither. Wiki is open to all for edits and corrections.

[edit] what happened to "offensive?"

69.33.230.212's excuse for censorship has changed from "offensive" to "commercialism" & "spam." what will it be next?

69.33.230.212's assertion that the link "has been added by the site's owner" is baseless. this kind of deliberate misinformation is one of the wikipedia's projects biggest weaknesses. so big that yesterday wikipedia took one small step toward rectifying this problem:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/05/wikipedia.rules.ap/index.html

users like 69.33.230.212 are not unlike the House of Unamerican Activities in the 1950's, imposing arbitrary measures of political correctness and answering to no one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/page2.html

"Although the project has no shortage of volunteers, most add nothing: busying themselves with edits that simply add or takeaway a comma."

"And Wikipedia's "cabal" has become notorious for deterring knowledgable and literate contributors. One who became weary of the in-fighting, Orthogonal, calls it Wikipedia's HUAC - the House of Unamerican Activities prominent in the McCarthy era for hunting down and imprisoning the ideologically-incorrect."

"So right now, the project appears ill-equipped to respond to the new challenge. Its philosophical approach deters subjective judgements about quality, and its political mindset deters outside experts from helping."

"This isn't promising."

[edit] External Link Spam: 66.159.223.15

Spam is offensive and violates the Wikipedia Guidelines. It is interesting that for all of 66.159.223.15's complaints about a lack of textualt contribution, the author's ONLY contribution is to repeatedly add this spam to the article. 66.159.223.15 has made not a single contribution to this article or any other.

It is an external link to a commercial website, among other things, which wiolates the external linking policy. In a similar vain, the article on Computer Viruses shouldn't link to computer virus software companies, etc. It's called SPAM.

[edit] define spam

spam is defined as "unsolicited commercial email." 69.33.230.212 is once again misleading the community.

i'll address 69.33.230.212's points one at a time:

The Tenderloin.net website does not provide a unique resource beyond the article.

tenderloin.net is by far the most comprehensive photo-documentary resource covering the tenderloin district of san francisco, online or offline. how is this not unique?

The Tenderloin.net is a link that has been added by the site's owners and promoters themselves, since 14 dec, 2004. (Longevity of linking doesn't trump the guidelines.)

stating "Tenderloin.net is a link that has been added by the site's owners" is totally baseless. the same statement was made on the history page. 69.22.230.212 is making things up and passing them off as fact. the wikipedia project's vulnerability to community members like 69.22.230.212 who deliberately mislead is one of the project's biggest weaknesses.

longevity does not trump guidelines but it is indicative of the content's relavence when it has been part of a page for over a year and has remained throughout many different edits by many different people.

The Tenderloin.Net website is a website that seeks to sell a video called bumfights and really just a page away from the commercial website. Their interest in linking to this page seems to be that of commercial interest only. I am not enforcing my sensibilities on anybody. The wikipedia guidelines plainly state that they wish to write about what is offensive, but not to be offensive. Defend your spam in whatever form you feel is needed. Whatever helps your company sell videos, I guess.

once again, 69.22.230.212 is misleading the community. most of the websites which are external links on wikipedia pages have some form of advertising. if tenderloin.net were a commercial site, there would be ads on every page and surrounding every photo. tenderloin.net contains nothing of the sort. the intro page has an editorial recommendation in favor of bumfights in the form of a single lined text link at the bottom of the page which the user must scroll down to see! this is anything but "commercial interest only."

now that i have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that tenderloin.net's primary purpose is not commercial and in fact has much less commercial content than most of the sites externally linked by wikipedia, i wonder what 69.22.230.212's next excuse for censorship will be?

[edit] Flawed Reasoning & SPAM & Outright False Information

It is SPAM, it does seek to promote a commercial interest and it is not relevant.

66.159.223.15's main arguement for inclusion is: "a photographic observation of the tenderloin district of san francisco in its natural state."

66.159.223.15 also states: tenderloin.net is by far the most comprehensive photo-documentary resource covering the tenderloin district of san francisco, online or offline.

That is definately not true.

The second statement is ridiculous on it's face. The San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner both have an extensive archive of photos of the tenderloin. The San Francisco public library has in it's collection numerous books and media that represent the neighborhood. There have benn documentaries produced by PBS featuring Maya Angelou that show this neighborhood. There are organizations in the neighborhood such as St. Anthony and Glide Memorial with photo archives full of images.

There is a page on the linked website that declares to be typical real estate in the tenderloin and shows a number of trailers and campers for sale. The tenderloin is in the middle of an urban city and has no mobile parks or trailers. So that's untrue.

There are factual errors and false accusations (similar to the problem discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed):

The website shows a number of photos of homeless and african american men standing on the street and declares them all to be "Crack Dealers". (http://tenderloin.net/crack.html) That is not shown to be true, and is in fact relevant to the type of false information that was discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed article about Wikipedia and spreading false information. Are those pictures in fact all of known crack dealers? No.

The website has a section that shows pictures of young women and in the tenderloin and declares them to be photos of prostitues. Is that a factual statement and representation? No.

66.159.223.15's arguements of "Macarthyism" and "misleading information" should be directed to the website claimed to be a factual representation of the tenderloin, when it is really a site designed to belittle the homeless and sell a commercial product.

It would be quite easy to find a camera and focus it on any street corner in America, make a website and say this site represents "such and such town", these people are all prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Take pictures of condemed housing from somewhere and say, "this is housing from xyz town". Haha. So what? It isn't true or relevant. No matter if I got the domain name xyztown.net. Should that be a link to xyztown's wikipedia article? No.

Why not? It wouldn't be true, it wouldn't be representative and it wouldn't be relevant. Tack onto all of that, if the person who created the site added the link himself, it would be a violation of Wikipedia. If the site was designed to promote sales of videos, it would be commercial.

The tenderloin.net sit is riddled with factual errors, untrue statements and contains many pictures that aren't even from the tenderloin - while labeling them as being from that neighborhood. That is fiction and not a fact or a photo essay of the neighborhood in it's natural state.

That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? No wonder the Wikipedia has a problem. Go figure.

I'll leave it for other users to correct the spam link, but 66.159.223.15's arguement for the link's inclusion is totally flawed. The strongest arguement made by 66.159.223.15 would in fact be a case for the deletion of the link.

The wikipedia is not a search engine. It should be relevant, non-commercial and present factual information that supports the article. It is none of these.

It's easy to scream censorship and Macarthyism. But 66.159.223.15 is the one accusing people of being Un-American. I am merely trying to clean up an article that is supposed to be about the Tenderlon, not about Bumfight videos. And if there were an article about bumfight videos, I still think that site is a commercial site promoting a product and it would be spam.

[edit] you are still unable to validate your constantly evolving position

It is SPAM, it does seek to promote a commercial interest and it is not relevant.

now you're repeating yourself. this is incorrect and was addressed previously.


Your Arguement for inclusion is: "a photographic observation of the tenderloin district of san francisco in its natural state."

That is definitely not true.

There is a page that declares to be typical real estate in the tenderloin and shows a number of trailers and campers for sale. The tenderloin is in the middle of an urban city and has no mobile parks or trailers. So that's untrue.

the "san francisco real estate" page is a parody. humor. something which you obviously lack. notice it was called "san francisco real estate" and not "tenderloin real estate." is spinning and twisting the best you can do?


There are factual errors and false accusations (similar to the problem discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed):

The website shows a number of photos of homeless and african american men standing on the street and declares them all to be "Crack Dealers". That is not shown to be true, and is in fact relevant to the type of false information that was discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed article about Wikipedia and spreading false information.

Are those pictures in fact all of known crack dealers? No.

where is it stated that "those pictures in fact all of known crack dealers?" you said this, no one else. http://tenderloin.net/crack.html


The website shows pictures of women in the tenderloin and declares all of them to be photos of prostitues. Is that a factual statement and representation? No.

you ask if this is "a factual statement and representation?" where is it stated that all photos of women are of prostitutes? most of the photographic content contains no editorial content at all.


Your arguements of "Macarthyism" and "misleading information" should be directed to the website you claim to be a factual representation of the tenderloin, when it is really a site designed to belittle the homeless and sell a commercial product.

i do not see how mcarthyism has anything to do with expressing an opinion. enforcing your opinion on others is mcarthyism and it is censorship.

tenderloin.net is a factual representation of the tenderloin in its photos, which are all 100% genuine, no fakes. you may disagree with the editorial content but the photos speak for themselves.


It would be quite easy to find a camera and focus it on any street corner in America, make a website and say this site represents "such and such town", these people are all prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Take pictures of condemed housing from somewhere and say, "this is housing from xyz town". Haha. So what? It isn't true or relevant. No matter if I got the domain name xyztown.net. Should that be a link to xyztown's wikipedia article? No.

no where does tenderloin.net express that all the residents of that neighborhood are "prostitutes, drug dealers, etc."

http://tenderloin.net/crack.html again, most of the photographs include no editorial content. tenderloin.net contains more photos of the tenderloin district of san francisco than any other source online or in print. this is a fact.


Why not? It wouldn't be true, it wouldn't be representative and it wouldn't be relevant. Tack onto all of that, if the person who created the site added the link himself, it would be a violation of Wikipedia. If the site was designed to promote sales of videos, it would be commercial.

asked and answered.

why don't you address the fact that not only has your reason for deleting this link changed from "offensive" to "commercialism," but also your assertion in both discussion and history that the link was added by the site's owners. that indicates that your reason for deleting the link is actually something other than what you are representing it to be.


The site you reference is riddled with factual errors, untrue statements and contains many pictures that aren't even from the tenderloin - while labeling them as being from that neighborhood. That is fiction and not a fact or a photo essay of the neighborhood in it's natural state.

again, most of the photos contain no comments. all photos are 100% genuine and are anything but fiction. if you disagree with or find no humor in the editorial comment, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. just don't push it on the wikipedia community.


That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? No wonder the Wikipedia has a problem. Go figure.

tenderloin.net is not an encyclopedia. it is an external link on this page.


I'll leave it for other users to correct the spam link, but your arguement for the link's inclusion is totally flawed. Your strongest arguement would in fact be a case for the deletion of the link.

nice job changing the subject to avoid answering my criticism.


The wikipedia is not a search engine. It should be relevant, non-commercial and present factual information that supports the article. It is none of these.

again, most sites externally linked on wikipedia pages contain much more commercial content through advertising. again, the photos are 100% genuine and are 100% factual.


It's easy to scream censorship and Macarthyism.

it's easy to scream "offensive" and "spam."


But you're the one accusing people of being un-american.

none of my comments on either the discussion or history pages have accused anyone of "being un-american." you are again making things up and stating them as fact. the inability to filter deliberate misinformation is one of the wikipedia project's greatest weaknesses. next you're going to say that the link "has been added by the site's owner."


I am merely trying to clean up an article that is supposed to be about the Tenderlon, not about Bumfight videos. And if there were an article about bumfight videos,

the bumfights video is not mentioned anywhere in the article and you have not removed bumfights from the article at any time.


I still think that site is a commercial site promoting a product and it would be spam.

how can a site which doesn't even have adsense-style or doubleclick style advertising be considered commercial? again, the link to bumfights is a single line of text at the bottom of one page which is an editorial recommendation. what you think and what is factual have turned out to be mutually exclusive over and over and over.

you have also made a habit of ignoring my hard points and hitting my soft points. i have addressed all of your concerns. you are intellectually dishonest by debating in this manner. you are factually dishonest when you make statements like the link "has been added by the site's owner" and that i'm "accusing people of being un-american."

[edit] Commercial Website

Besides promoting a video, the link to photos also has products for sale on shirts, caps, bags, mugs with photos from the website. Commerce = Commercialism. Linking to Bumfights where the site owner get a 20% comission on sales = Commercialism. It is definately a website promoting a commercial interest. It is SPAM, the user 66.159.223.15 continues to add the link and nothing more to Wikipedia. It should be removed.

[edit] An outsider's view

First, please avoid edit wars, they serve no purpose. Instead of constantly reverting, discuss this in a civil manner on the talk page.

Second, I agree that the link adds nothing to the article and is not needed, and is more than likely commercial SPAM.

Third, if all else fails, submit the dispute to WP:RFC, but please try to work it out here first. Peyna 00:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2 out of 255 is hardly commercial or promotional content

tenderloin.net has 255 web pages. most of those pages contain photos only, no text.

253 of those pages do not contain commercial content in any form--text links, google adwords style or doubleclick banner style.

2 of those 255 web pages contain simple text links to commercial sites but these text links are in the form of editorial recommendations, not paid advertisments.

in light of these facts:

- please explain how tenderloin.net is a commercial site promoting a product.

- please explain how externally linking to tenderloin.net from this article is of significant financial benefit to anyone.

[edit] RFC

A partial request for an WP:RFC on the inclusion of a link to Tenderloin.net has been made at This RFC

First, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. In general we are quite happy if articles have _no_ external links apart from references - we would much rather have the content inside the Wiki where it can be editted by all. Nevertheless there can be advantages in including some well chosen external links that are particularly appropriate to topic and can't be included in any other way.

Tenderloin.net appears to be a collection of photographs of people in and around Tenderloin, San Francisco, so it is not completely off topic. However it doesn't add much of relevance and appears to be POV pushing so is probably better removed. The author might prefer to contribute some photos under a free license to Wikimedia Commons. -- Solipsist 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • delete -- Solipsist 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Ian13 20:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- support Solipsist's suggestion that the author contribute some photos under a free license, if he thinks it's so important that readers see these photos. Wikipedia is about free content, not promoting unfree content. Phr (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- as above, plus I believe that the link promoter is not acting in good faith Ergative rlt 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I understand the objections to the site, and although I don't think the link is repeatedly added in order to promote any commercial interest, the tone of the site is not itself neutral as to its viewpoint. That said, it is probably the best collection of photos of the Tenderloin available on the net, and I am reluctant to remove a pointer to a useful resource. MCB 06:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions on Tenderloin wiki page

Looks like the typical SF liberals control this page by their overzealous enforcement of what they consider the truth. You obsessive wiki deletion artists have your heads wedged firmly in your posterior. As someone who lived on the outskirts of the Tenderloin for 12 years I can say for a fact that your glowing descriptions of the Tenderloin are nothing but pure fantasy.

A co-worker of mine was CARJACKED at GUNPOINT less than six months ago from the corner of Larkin and Sutter as she picked up a friend and was loading a suitcase in the trunk of her car. Her and her friend were driven around the Tenderloin by the carjackers for the next two hours while the carjacker and his accomplice sold the suitcase and rifled through their purses for cash. Your skewed view of the Tenderloin is a joke and doesn't reflect the REAL Tenderloin. One might think you are a Tenderloin property owner making efforts to raise your property values.

I suggest you wiki assholes get a life and stop imposing your flawed and false views on intelligent people.

And by the way, tenderloin.net IS hands down the best photographic reference of the Tenderloin. To say that is is not because the Chron took some photos just makes you sound like even more of a moron. Thank god I moved out of SF and got away from assholes like you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.37.114 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Revert War

I post this message due to the severe edit war taking place: My I ask all parties involved in edit war to stop reverting edits, especially refering to the external link on this page. If you do so you run the rish of breaking WP:3RR (The three revert rule), and if this happens you may be blocked from editing. Any user who is having their edits reverted by multiple users, and is restoring them will be placed forth for Adminstrator intervention, and for further action to be taken. Thank you for reading this. Ian13 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guess you wiki asswipes don't understand shit.

Do not revert means do not revert.

Do any of you have an education that goers past the third grade? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.141.92 (talk • contribs).

[edit] The Tenderloin in Pictures

So, I can't really tell what the final outcome of the dispute between the promoters of bumfights/tenderloin.net and their detractor was from the posts above but it seems clear to me that 1) tenderloin.net is essentially an advertisement for bumfight products and 2) the POV expressed at tenderloin.net is hostile, insensitive, and cruel in regard to its treatment of the homeless and mentally ill. One page of photographs is accompanied by the heading:"Another afternoon in the Loin - Dealers, pimps, hookers, freaks and lazy bastards". The photos that follow would perhaps be an acceptably neutral observations of homeless life were they not prefaced with such a degrading caption. Not only is tenderloin.net crass and exploitative of the "freaks and lazy bastards" it showcases, it is attempting to make money at the expense of some of the most destitute and unfortunate people in the First World. As of 2:05 AM, 5/29/06, the external link to this pathetic display of sadistic cruelty still exists. Can anyone possibly justify why it should remain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.241.217 (talk • contribs).

I took out the link but probably won't be on Wikipedia much for the next few weeks, and I don't want to get sucked into an edit war. I do have a few TL pictures of my own that I might upload if I can find them. Phr (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that the article takes too much of a real-estate-salespersons-point-of-view for my tastes. I may try to tone it down when I get back to editing. Phr (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No surprise that people might fight about this article

While it's no surprise that people fight about this article, the level of vitriol here would embarrass anyone who actually works or lives in the Tenderloin who also sees this site. If you promote anything besides *fact* here, get a grip. It's an encyclopedia - not a soapbox. Thanks, Throbblefoot 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borders

Whatever one's personal definition of the Tenderloin is, the article should reflect common usage. This does often include the lower Polk Gulch region and the area immediately south of, or on the southern slopes of, Nob Hill - see some of the links, and the discussion on gentrification - and thus should be mentioned in the article. Also, the Castro isn't a very good choice to set the location of the Tenderloin as the two neighborhoods do not share a border. Finally, saying that Post Street is the northern border, but that it can range as far north as Geary Street makes no sense as Geary is south of Post. Ergative rlt 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/n/Talk%7ETenderloin%2C_San_Francisco%2C_California_13c0.html"