Talk:Ghost Town, Oakland, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Alameda County, California may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents 1 References 2 Request for comment on dispute 2.1 constantly deleted reference 3 RFC 4 Informal vote 5 Quote function in citations 6 Removing "ghost riding" material 7 City of Oakland programs 8 Request for comment on dispute: Ghost Riding 9 RFC 10 Alaska 11 Ghosttown vs Ghost Town 12 Merge to West Oakland 13 Suggested guide for inclusion of Oakland neighborhoods

[edit] References

This article seriously needs some references, i have never heard of ghosttown, but it probably exists if it hasnt been deleted for now, is there a ghosttown council? community organization? website? newspaper coverage? mention on a map? what is it? who lives there? one sentance is not much to do research to add content for it. =( help...anyone?Cholga^talK! 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohh...my....God!!! I can't believe that "Ghostown" is actually listed as a part of West Oakland! I lived on 33rd Street between West and Grove Sts. (Grove St. is now MLK Way) from the fall of '79 til about '83 and I was there when the name "Ghostown" was first coined. The name should be attributed to one Arthur Palmer who lived on 33rd St. He complained about how boring that area was. He actually said "this place is like a ghostown". As I remember it, he began hanging out with members of a fairly large family who lived in a house on the corner of 32nd and Grove Sts. They all began calling it Ghostown and being that they were well known in the community, the name stuck. As I remember it, Ghostown is the area within the boundaries of I-580 (north), the Grove-Shafter Freeway(east), 31st St.(south) and San Pablo Ave (west).

---

The location information should be changed to read "southeast" not "soutwest" of the MacArthur Maze. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.169.239 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on dispute

Old RFC removed; was confusing the bot. Issue was "repeated reinsertion of disputed reference by editor".

The editor user:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has repeatedly put back a reference that I have disputed as not being from a reliable source. The reference is here, and it appears to be little more than a blog maintained by a person who doesn't even live in the place in question (West Oakland). My other objection is that the reference is extremely long, and the quote in the reference should be integrated into the text, since it's central, not tangential, to the topic under discussion (i.e., the name of the neighborhood); however, the fact that this appears to fail the reliability test for sources is more serious. Can some neutral third parties comment on this? It would be appreciated. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] constantly deleted reference

There is no reason to be constantly removing the reference or removing the quote. The quote function is part of a standard citation for a reason. There is no Wikipedia guide that says it has to trimmed to a particular length that pleases you, its there for everyone. I see you tried to delete it completely another time. It is the one reference in the article that actually contains the history of the town, and not just a reference to it as a location in an article on another topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on burying this fairly crucial piece of information in a reference? It ought to be integrated into the body of the article; quotes in references such as these are supposed to be for tangential material, not matters which are of more primary importance, as the name of the neighborhood is. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How did you come up with deleting it as a solution to your annoyance over where it appeared in the article? What purpose does that serve any reader? It seems to just satisfy you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to get you to take the material out of the quote and put it into the article proper. That's how stuff gets done around here: look around you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, just bizzare behavior on your part. You could have done the same and saved yourself 1,000 keystrokes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Richard Arthur Norton. Deletion of references is one of the most destructive forms of behaviour on Wikipedia. Please try to be constructive to articles. Anlace 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit; any material, including references, can be challenged and removed on legitimate grounds, as I did; I challenge the reliability of this source, as it appears to be the blog of someone who doesn't even live in the area. The editor has not yet responded to this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Challenging a reference on the article talk page is certainly a reasonable actions in some cases. Obliterating a reference from the article may border on vandalism. I have seen many references on wikipedia virtually lost from the acts of erasing a legitimate citation. In this case the reference challenged seems to be an authentic rendition of conditions of the subject neighborhood. When the topic is something like a neighborhood, one doesn't expect every reference to come from the Journal of Chemistry or Encycolpedia Brittanica. The reference seems quite appropriate and contains well written germane content. Anlace 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The source provides a clear and concise description of the boundaries of the area, and is properly attributed. There is no reason for its removal and the repeated removal of this sourced content is unjustified. Alansohn 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• He is the creator of an intentional community in Oakland, so I would think he wasn't pulling the info out of his bum. The website is not a blog, its the official website for the Oakland intentional community he created. You already admitted that you disrupt articles, just to make a point. I am assuming good faith, but it looks like your Trolling at this point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying, as it appears, that this is basically one guy's website. How is that in any way a "reliable source"? I think it fails that test. The burden of proof is on you as the one who inserted the material, not me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So is the New York Times, its Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.'s website. If the information was contradicted by another source, I would use both. But its not a blog. You seem to be shifting arguments as we proceed. You wanted it gone so that I would add the text to the article, then you wanted the quote section removed because it was too long, now you are back to wanting it deleted again. I think you just like a good argument. Its easier than creating content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So instead of answering my challenge you pretend to psychoanalyze me? Thanks, but no thanks, and you still haven't addressed my objections in any substantive way. The NYT is Sulzberger's personal website? That's a hoot (hint: can you say "fact checkers"?), and a piss-poor rejoinder in any case. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Which of your four sequential, and sometimes mutually exclusive, objections do you want me to address? Your arguments were: 1) The info belongs in the article text and not in the reference section, so it should be deleted 2) The quote is too long, so it should be deleted 3) It doesn't belong in the text because 3a) its from a blog, so it should be deleted 3b) its from some guys website, so it should be deleted? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated profanity, ILike2beAnonymous, is not an impressive form of rhetoric. Please keep this discussion civil. It sounds like the majority of editors favour this discussed reference as one to be included. So, as Richard Arthur Norton says, lets all spend more time on constructive editing rather than rehashing this. Anlace 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't mind, before you declare this a done deal, I'd like a little more time to let other disinterested 3rd parties to respond to the RfC. OK w/you? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, reliability of a source depends on the credibility of the author. In this case, the source is not reliable because a random guy named Dan Antonioli doesn't seem credible. While the site is not really a blog, it is more like an original research from this guy. Personally, I don't think the source is reliable at all. Chris! _{my talk} 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Chrishomingtang statement. The Chrishomingtang statement should be given no weight, since editor Chrishomingtang doesn't seem to have done the homework to backup his fallacious statement. Antonioli is not some "random" guy. With almost 700 google hits on his name, the google data alone makes Antonioli not only reliable but potentially notable in his own right. (Read the google articles by and citing Antonioli). Antonioli has an advanced degree, twenty years of work experience, including ten years in ecological design. He not only has authored other credible data, published on the internet, but he also is cited by other internet sources on the subject of his field. A further intrinsic test of reliability is that his published works are consistent with other credible sources. Chrishomingtang has the philosophy of wikipedia wrong: It's not what Chrishomingtang "personally" "think"s, but what the evidence tells us. The evidence is all on the side of a reliable source. Anlace 02:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of hits on google has no bearing on the reliablitiy of a source. I refer you to WP:RS. I doesn't matter who he is or what qualifications he has, a self published article is still a self-published article. If his work has been published by peer reviewed journals as you suggest then that and only that can be considered a reliable source. As the guidelines say 'anyone can create a website'. We do not consider a person themselves for reliability but the article and there is no proof that this article has been fact checked or peer reviewed. On this point you misunderstand the guidelines --Neon white 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to question your response. You said above that this guy has an advanced degrees and twenty years experiences. Can you at least show me a link before discrediting my statement? It is ironic for you to say that I haven't done my homework to backup my statement, when you didn't even do that yourself. When I googled Antonioli, the only possible reliable source I could find is this. According to the website, Dan Antonili is just a general contractor in the bay area who worked in green housing, hardly a professional with advanced degrees on ecological design. No evidence whatsoever has shown that the source (or the person) here is reliable. I will continue to oppose the inclusion of this source until I can see some convincing evidence. Also, I have to clarify one thing. My comment above is not "what I think," but it is based on "what I found." Chris! _{my talk} 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is self-published and therefore is not reliable according to WP:RS. 'self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources'. That's the only point that is revelant. --Neon white 23:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear to be a self published book, a blog, or a "personal" website. Its the website of an organization for the intentional community. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the 'contact' page of the website, it clearly shows that this is a personal website owned by the person in question.--Neon white 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the "organization"? All I see is stuff written by one guy, Dan Antonioli. Is there anyone else's work here? I don't see any. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• The bigger non-issue is that Wikipedia policy directly addresses the issue of material from sources such as this one: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves -- the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability and use of sources -- specifically accepts such sources, as long as they are not the only sources used to demonstrate notability or to provide information regarding the source. Unless someone can come up with a policy that overrides this one, this discussion is over and done with; the source meets the standard, enhances the article and needs to stay, as is. Alansohn 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

the source here is not being used to demonsrate notability and the page is not about the author. --Neon white 16:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem, and such an obvious one that I'm really surprised you didn't notice it, is that this article is not about the source, which is what I assume is meant in this policy when it says "[m]aterial from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves". In other words, this source (611Eco Village by Dan Antonioli) is not the subject of this article, therefore it's not allowable as a source here.

Or did I miss something here? If not, then this discussion ain't over by a long shot. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

you are correct. --Neon white 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we must keep the referencing matter in perspective. when the topic is an intrinsically local one such as Ghosttown, Oakland, California, we can not expect to find dozens of textbooks and professional journal articles on the subject. Wikipedia policy specifically renders sources conditionally "acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" This fits to me and the source should stay in. Anlace 03:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But where are the "reliable third-party publications" which have published this author's work? And where do you get "established expert"? I don't know enough about this guy (Antonioli) to say one way or another: how do you know this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anlance, you have provided no evidences whatsoever on this Antonioli guy. I think we should delete the reference now. Chris! _ct 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Since this is clearly still disputed, and hearing no further objections from the congregation, I've removed the reference and replaced it with {{fact}}. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with ILike2beAnonymous on this. I was the one who wrote above that the name Ghostown came from one Arthur Palmer on 33rd St. Like I said I LIVED in the area and had NEVER heard of it being referred to as Ghostown until Art coined it. No where. EVER. To now say that the name MAY come from a characterization of the area after it suffered economically and as a result was depopulated is a far stretch for me. However I noticed that a book written in 1972 was used as a reference also. Using the search engine on that site I could not find a direct quote connecting the area to the name Ghostown. Could the author please post the actual text of the book that he referencing? Thanks in advance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.139.254 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not keep the source in dispute and just add new ones if possible? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference seems fine to me, if it's terribly controversial (which does not seem to be the case) then add a qualifier(s) so the reader can decide for themselves how much weight to give the ref. I would keep it though and as suggested simply back it up with others if needed. Benjiboi 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

There is no consensus for deletion, the RFC is still active, by deleting the reference, you are not letting the people who are coming to the page to review the reference be able to see it. Others are reverting the page to be able to see the reference. Please show patience and let the RFC play out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the subject. Without clear consensus for deletion, the link should be retained to allow other interested parties (as well as anyone who might benefit from a definition of the area) see what the details are that are up for discussion. Alansohn 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; the burden of proof here is on he or she who places the reference, not those who are disputing it, so it should stay out. In any case, as the RfC is still active as was pointed out above, interested parties can easily look at it for themselves via the article history and decide if it is viable or not. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A whole dang edit war over a ref. Sad, sad, sad. ILike2BeAnonymous is being disruptive; there was no need to remove the reference if it was being discussed in the talk page and consensus had not been reached. Please do not remove the reference again until consensus is reached, or you'll see this page listed at WP:RFPP and your name at WP:ANI. --Agüeybaná 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is already decided that the reference should be removed. I don't understand why we have to wait. But I guess I will have to since there is a temporary consensus for keeping the reference. Chris! _ct 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Decided"?? By whom? You guys? That's not exactly consensus. --Agüeybaná 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not decided by us?? Then what you think consensus mean? Chris! _ct 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've read the discussion here, and I have two comments: 1.) ILike2BeAnonymous and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s edit warring was completely unnecessary and hurtful to the encyclopedia. Please remember that discussion and consensus is key to making Wikipedia work. 2.) The reference is unreliable, IMO, and the article looks rather hoax-y; I could find no references to verify the information in this article, other than the disputed reference. Final suggestion: Wait for more people to review this article, or take this to AfD. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So how long do you suggest waiting? Something longer than the time Ben Franklin advised for stinking fish and unwelcome guests, I take it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL </sarcasm> Whatever you see fit. --Agüeybaná 23:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal vote

• Keep He seems a reliable source, as a teacher, and someone who lived in the area, and built a commune there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a reliable source. Again editors didn't present sufficient evidences to support their claim. Chris! _ct 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow, as it is essentially a one-man show. It's impossible to tell whether he's a reliable source or not, and since this whole article seems to hang on that as evidence, it doesn't rise to the level of verifiability that one would want in an encyclopedia article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Blogs are generally not reliable sources, and certainly can't be used as the primary source for WP:V. /Blaxthos 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although blogs are not always reliable, they do provide a point of view and so when used in conjunction with other sources could help demonstrate something. I would suggest using the source in a manner that does not assert definitive facts, but helps provide insight into how someone familiar with the area thinks about it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to say, insights (or POV) from some unknown individual are not notable. And how can we use "using the source in a manner that does not assert definitive facts?" I mean why use the source if it doesn't assert any definitive facts. I don't understand. We strive for accuracy here on Wikipedia. Chris! _ct 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and ten minutes in the naughty corner for ILike2BeAnonymous for foul language and borderline WP:Civility issues. Benjiboi 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this talk page has become a bit of a mess with this blow-up, a little housekeeping may be in order. Benjiboi 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'd always prefer a more definitive source, but there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the source, and it provides useful information regarding the area's boundaries that we have been unable to find elsewhere. The bottom line: even from a blog, the article is far better off with it, than without it. Alansohn 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is better off with the blog. That is not true. WP:V specifically tells us that blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. It reads "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Chris! _ct 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • With due respect, there is also wp concept that common sense allows for ignoring rules in favor of making a better encyclopedia. Benjiboi 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • But the point is that this unreliable source doesn't make the encyclopedia better. So WP:IAR doesn't apply. Chris! _ct 22:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • We'll have to agree to disagree, myself and several other editors think it's a fine ref and does improve the article even though it is from a blog-ish source. Benjiboi 22:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete reference from a person of unknown expertise. Mukadderat 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That one persona called it so does not make for reliable evidence for anything. To say there is no reliable source for the name but X thinks in his blog that perhaps.... is not encyclopedic. I apologize for missing the chance to !vote delete at the afd. DGG (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote function in citations

I restored the quote function, as you see, someone removed a reference because they didn't see the reference to Ghosttown in a massive website. The quote function is very useful on many levels. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "ghost riding" material

I've removed the material pertaining to "ghost riding" again because it's highly tangential to the subject of the article, and frankly just plain unencyclopedic.

Let's look at the reference supplied, shall we? There's only one mention of the neighborhood in the article:

F.A.B. (real name: Stanley Cox) says in an interview that he first saw people ghost-riding about 10 years ago in Oakland's "Ghosttown" section ( where he thinks the name might have originated).

That's it; the say-so of one character who goes by "F.A.B" who thinks that's where the name "Ghosttown" comes from. How's that for a great piece of scholarship?

This edit, which keeps trying to sneak back in here, is clearly a case of an editor or editors wishing to connect things that really aren't, kind of a personal campaign to somehow force "ghost riding" to be associated with this neighborhood, with a reference even. Just because one finds a reference (in a reliable source) mentioning the thing in question does not mean that it validates it.

You can't be serious. Unless you really conceive of this as a collection of disembodied bits of information, where pretty much anything goes, this does not belong here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Material that directly ascribes the derivation of the term "ghost riding", with a reliable source attributing the derivation to a rapper who helped popularize the term is being removed on the say so of one editor who has decided that the material doesn't belong here, even with a reference provided (emphasis mocking baffling bolding in previous comment). It is becoming clearer and clearer that User:ILike2BeAnonymous is trying to fight the failed effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostown, Oakland, California by trying to remove content one paragraph at a time. No content is too well-sourced or too thoroughly documented to withstand the deletion powers of ILike2BeAnonymous. Consensus is clear that this article is notable and that the material added is encyclopedic. Further attempts to remove sourced content will be treated as vandalism. Alansohn 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "consensus"? Who besides the two of us here has discussed this issue? And how do you make out that article, which clearly states that the person thinks (i.e., isn't really sure about it) that that was where the term came from?

If you were writing this in a paper for school, your teacher would throw it back in your face. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not writing this for school, so I don't understand what your "your teacher would throw it back in your face" bullshit is. I'm expanding a Wikipedia article where we deal on a consensus basis, a practice you clearly don't believe in. Consensus is clear that the article is notable, yet you persist in trying to take the article apart. You have decided that the material regarding ghost riding is not notable, and, despite the sources and explanatory details provided, have persisted in removing it without any support, other than your stamping your feet. I provide a sourced statement, but you have decided that your consensus of one overrides it. As with many terms there is no definitive source of its derivation, yet the individual cited as a source, who is credited with popularizing the term, cites Ghosttown as its derivation which is more than adequate for inclusion here. As you have been warned previously, any further removal of sourced material will be treated as vandalism and further reversions will subject you to the penalties imposed under WP:3RR. Alansohn 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what consensus is; I challenge you to show me where there is any here. So far, only you and I have discussed this topic, correct? So how can there possibly be "consensus" when we have one person arguing for inclusion and one against? (I'm talking specifically about the "ghost riding takes its name from the neighborhood Ghosttown" business.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on the AfD for this article was a clear keep, a result you persist in disregarding. I have added material with appropriate sourcing that demonstrates a clear connection to this article. In order to remove it you will need to show that it violates Wikipedia policy or that you have consensus to remove it. Where on earth have you been granted veto power to decide on what's included in this article with your consensus of one? Cooperate or get lost. Find other articles where you might find editors who kowtow to your bullying and abuse of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 03:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's the bully here? And you still haven't answered my question: where the hell is the consensus here for retention of this dubious reference? And what does the AfD have to do with this? Nothing. Address the issue at hand, please. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• None is required; it's sourced, it's directly relevant to the article, it stays. You refuse to stand by the consensus reached at the AfD and are now trying to take the article apart one paragraph at a time. Your continued abuse will not be tolerated. Who the hell gave you veto power to decide that what offends your delicate sensibilities must be deleted? Alansohn 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Back off, Alansohn. You're being insulting. That's not helping.--chaser - t 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ILike2, I don't see what's wrong with this being in the article, either. The Washington Post is a reliable source, and the disputed text doesn't go beyond it: "said that he first saw the practice in Ghosttown" It doesn't say "the practice first happened in Ghosttown," it quotes a person's claim. Quoting a claim is not the same as endorsing the claim as being true.--chaser - t 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that the Post is a reliable source, last I checked; I thought I took pains to point that out. But please re-read the relevant part of the article excerpted above; it says that the guy thinks that the term ghost riding comes from the name of the neighborhood. In other words, he's not positive about it (at least according to our reliable source). Doesn't this raise any red flags for you? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• He doesn't claim to have invented the term. His claim that he believes it to have been derived from Ghosttown is a verifiable claim from a credible source who is credited with popularizing the practice. You are free to rebut it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia doesn't demand truth, it demands verifiability, and this source provides it. Again, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the material violates Wikipedia policy or that there is consensus for its removal. You have provided neither. Alansohn 04:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IL2BA. The ghostriding claim is simply unencyclopedic. Editors have turned this article into a dump of garbage information. And last time I check, information can still be removed even if it hasn't violate any policy. And if you two can't agree. Try Rfc. Chris! _ct 06:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let's see. There's an encyclopedic article for Ghost ride. A reliable source quotes the individual responsible for popularizing the term attributing the term to Ghosttown. Other than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT hissy fit, no justification has been provided for its removal under any Wikipedia policy. So why exactly is it unencyclopedic? Alansohn 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply because there is an article about ghostride, doesn't mean the topic is encyclopedic. Your argument is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS put together. Chris! _ct 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire. The topic is encyclopedic and a reliable source from a definitive individual traces the term right back to Ghosttown. 23 skidoo is attributed to 23rd Street (Manhattan) and Big Apple is mentioned at New York City, with far more tangential evidence that there is any connection to these locations. Again, while I offer a clear and concise justification for including the material here, all you offer is irrelevant babbling about claims never made. Do you actually have anything that resembles Wikipedia policy as a justification to remove sourced content? Alansohn 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you even bring up the 23 skidoo article shows the paucity of your scholarship and, really, how you're grasping at straws here. I wonder if you've even read that article thoroughly: the reference you point out (to 23rd St.) is only one possible explanation for the slang term out of at least 7 (according to this source, cited in the article). And besides, as pointed out below, that article is at least a legitimate place to air speculative theories about the origin of a slang term, while this article is not. This clearly trying to "make it fit" on your part here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, stop editing my comments, a continuing sign of your attempts to impose your arbitrary sense of order on others. Second of all, the information regarding "23 skidoo" is included at both the 23 skidoo article (where the several various alternatives are cited) AND at the 23rd Street (Manhattan) article, which includes mention of the Flatiron Building derivation as a possible source, and cites a source that states that "it supposedly is where the slang expression 23 skidoo comes from". The entire fact pattern is entirely analogous to what we have here. This article is an entirely appropriate place to discuss a term that is directly attributed to Ghosttown by its popularizer. The fact that the term is associated with Ghosttown provides information to any reader of this article that would flesh out an understanding of the neighborhood, its relevance should be addressed by readers not by a one-man wrecking crew. I don't blame you for trying to undo the results of your failed AfD efforts, but your attempts to remove sourced content are completely and entirely unjustifiable. Alansohn 06:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, unencyclopedic info can be removed any time without actually violating any policy. This is simply an one man show trying to incorporate some irrelevant garbages objected by 2 editors in here. Did you even read the article 23 skidoo and Big Apple? Both articles have more than one source to support the info. Besides, both articles are about nickname and slang term. Is this article places to include slang term and nicknames. No, I don't think so. This article is about a neighborhood, not some slangs popularized by some rappers. The info you insist to incorporate here should just be added to article on ghostriding at best. Chris! _ct 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again, your claim that the term is unencyclopedic is complete nonsense, and the fact that it is attributed to the individual responsible for widespread popularization who traces it right back to Ghosttown is distinctly encyclopedic. An article about a neighborhood that fails to trace a reliably-sourced connection of this nature back to its place of origin is a rather poor article. Again, if you can demonstrate that the term is nonencyclopedic, you just might have a leg to stand on other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn 04:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that your claim is nonsense, nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. An article where editors dump unimportant info is also a poor article. Look like it is time for Rfc. Chris! _ct 04:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've provided sources that show it is encyclopedic, sourced and relevant; you've provided squat. Alansohn 06:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Oakland programs

I deleted this section because it has no direct relation to Ghosttown. The program is for the whole Oakland, and Ghosttown is merely listed in it, with no encyclopedic information for this artcle. We cannot write articles about things by describing each and every topic the thing is mentioned in. We must include only what really desribes the obect of the article. Mukadderat 03:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote is: "[The City-County Neighborhood Initiative is] a program run by the City of Oakland Division of Neighborhood Services operates in two neighborhoods, in Ghost Town in West Oakland and Sobrante Park in East Oakland." Perhaps you are confusing it with the citywide "Measure Y" campaign. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a pattern of trying to delete/restore the article, or portions of it, its best to discuss info here first, and build consensus for major deletions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• The source describes it as an initiative aimed at two neighborhoods. The relationship to Ghosttown couldn't be any more direct. Alansohn 05:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I indeed was not careful to read and indeed thought about "Measure Y". Thank you for reading my mind :-) Mukadderat 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, the footnote has the spelling "Ghost Town". Probaly, you must mention this somewhere in the article, for the benefit of people who will do google searches. Mukadderat 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Seeing how the error was made, I changed the header to try and reduce the confusion. Its interesting to see how people read, and what can be done to make things clearer. There is always room for improvement. The scarcity of references to Ghosttown, show how few local newspapers are online with their archives. The references are coming from Washington, DC only becasue they have a good archive at the Washington Post. Here in NJ, we dont even have a good website for the local papers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please address my second item (marked "P.S."). Mukadderat 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• This article is already listed in the article "Ghost Town" as a "see other". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on dispute: Ghost Riding

Material has been added to the article attributing the derivation of the term Ghost–riding to Ghosttown. The claim is sourced by a reference to The Washington Post, which quotes Oakland rapper Mistah F.A.B. as making the claim. An additional source demonstrates that Mistah F.A.B. had created a video shown on MTV that has been credited for popularizing the term, granting credence to his claim of a possible connection to Ghosttown as a reasonable derivation. The editor User:ILike2BeAnonymous has removed the content on several occasions, claiming that the material is nonencyclopedic. Alansohn 06:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, here's the meat of that reference (the only place where Ghosttown is mentioned):

F.A.B. (real name: Stanley Cox) says in an interview that he first saw people ghost-riding about 10 years ago in Oakland's "Ghosttown" section ( where he thinks the name might have originated).

This is what is being claimed as justification for including the bit about the neighborhood (Ghosttown) being named after the practice (ghost-riding). I think it's pretty self-evident that there is no such justification. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the quote in the reference supports the idea that the term "ghost riding" may have either been derived from or originated in the area known as "Ghosttown." It doesn't seem to support the reverse, but the related text in the article did not try to make that point. F.A.B.'s quote was about a possible source for the term, not the practice--I modified the text to make that more clear. Regardless, the possible association with the more widely known term makes the unofficial nickname for the neighborhood more notable, I think, even if the derivation is not certain.--Hjal 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So Hjal, do you think the info about "ghostridin" should be include in this article? Because that is the dispute here. Chris! _ct 19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This rapper appears to be notable, and he is being quoted in a national paper on the subject, referring directly to the community. Therefore, it's not incorrect information, and it's obviously verifiable. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider rappers reliable sources for historical matters, so we shouldn't treat this as a significant etymology. I believe that it's appropriate to mention his remark but do no more: something like "rapper 'FAB' believes that the name of the community and the name of the practise are related" Nyttend 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's something else to consider: the practice of ghost-riding is illegal. The city of Oakland has decided to aggressively go after "sideshows", which include this practice, and continue to do so. Because of this, the practice rarely, if ever, occurs on the streets of West Oakland; at least not anywhere near what it was in the past, where tire donuts could be seen at practically every intersection in that part of town. (In fact, there's an ongoing conflict over what some perceive as the OPD's heavy-handed tactic of confiscating cars involved in such exhibitions, under a law recently renewed by the California legislature: for more on this topic, I recommend Douglas Allen-Taylor's writing in The Berkeley Daily Planet; search for his name to find his articles there.)

So it's a very big question whether this should be given such prominence in the article. It's a matter not just of verifiability, but of giving undue weight to something, and yes, whether it's "encyclopedic" or not. Even though ghost-riding was once rampant there, it isn't today; and probably most residents of that neighborhood would rather it never came back. Glorifying what is essentially ganster behavior is not exactly make for academically good writing, which is what is the goal here.

Certainly ghost-riding deserves its own article here; it's real, has been practiced in Oakland in the past (and no doubt is still practiced somewhere else at this moment), so like it or not, it exists. But giving such prominence to it in such a small article on a small neighborhood in West Oakland is not proper; it wrongly characterizes the neighborhood as some kind of Wild West town ruled by the baggy-pants crowd. I suggest it be removed entirely, and not replaced until the article becomes fully fleshed out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article makes no characterization as to the frequency, popularity or legality of the practice of ghost-riding. It doesn't glorify the practice, nor does it encourage anyone to take it up as a hobby. I can assure you that you will never read a newspaper article from someone saying that they started ghost-riding in Ghosttown after reading this Wikipedia article. The article simply provides a reliable and verifiable source to support a claim that the term for this encyclopedic practice may well be derived from Ghosttown, providing a clear nexus for inclusion in this article. There is no claim made here, wrongly or otherwise, that Ghost-riding is rampant there, and the contention that the reference makes Ghosttown appear to be "some kind of Wild West town ruled by the baggy-pants crowd" and must be removed on that basis, is one of the most spectacularly ludicrous claims I have ever seen as an excuse to remove content. The text occupies a minute fraction of the article and is not given any "prominence", let alone any of the "undue" kind. The article could certainly be more "fully fleshed out", however you have devoted the past several weeks to reverting almost any and all changes made to the article, totaling some 20 separate occasions in which you removed sourced content added to the article by several different editors. I'm not sure what your motive is in interfering with efforts to improve this article, but it seems to be time to move on elsewhere, especially in light of the fact that there is no support for your effort to remove the ghost-riding information. By the way, if you have sources to show that "ghost-riding was once rampant there" and that the "the practice rarely, if ever, occurs on the streets of West Oakland; at least not anywhere near what it was in the past, where tire donuts could be seen at practically every intersection in that part of town" or to show that the practice has been largely curtailed in the area and how it has been suppressed, it would make for an excellent addition to the article and would provide some of the added context that might even satisfy your own concerns about the article. Alansohn 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Both RFCs are now closed? what was the outcome? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken. The new RfC just began. Chris! _ct 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska

I am temp removing the ref for: ^[1] I cant see the ref in Google in a search, and I found enough other ones in the SFC to not need it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghosttown vs Ghost Town

Searching for "Ghost Town" and Oakland found many more hits, so I am changing the spelling, and adding the new references. It can always be reverted back. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to West Oakland

• Oppose Distinct are with distinct characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge; Ghost Town, Cypress, etc., are all too microscopic in size and in stature to be considered real "neighborhoods". West Oakland is a recognized division of the city. All of these micro-articles and stubs should be subsumed into the West Oakland article. This would also automatically avoid a lot of the disputes over marginal material being included in these articles. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Well-defined separate subject. Wikipedia not paper. "microcsopic" not valid argument: we have artciles for separate buildings and even rooms (and even separate shairs :-) - the only criterion is induividual verifiable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• support it should be merged, i allready added it in, its a neighborhood within a neighborhood and looks well in West Oakland.Cholga^talK! 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know that the West Oakland article describes it as such, but it really is too big to be considered a neighborhood. IMO, it's actually a portion/area of Oakland, such as East and North Oakland. Bash Kash (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. IMO, Ghost Town is notable enough to warrant a separate article, as are the other West Oakland neighborhood articles. Don't see any reason why we should be keeping the articles about the richer areas of Oakland (Montclair, Rockridge, etc.) and merge this one. We should be try be consistent on these topics. Bash Kash (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested guide for inclusion of Oakland neighborhoods

Since there's an ongoing dispute over several articles about Oakland neighborhoods and whether these articles (mostly about very small areas, or in some cases about housing projects), I'd like to propose a guide for which entities should be considered valid for inclusion as neighborhoods.

The Oakland Museum of California has a very nice web page that lets one browse a map of the city and look at neighborhoods and districts. (Caution: requires Flash.) I'd like to suggest that since this map has been compiled by an eminently reputable source, the Museum, that it can serve as a pretty good guide to whether a neighborhood in Oakland actually exists and should be included here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)