Talk:Rodeo Drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject Los Angeles, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Los Angeles, California, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
WikiProject California 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.

According to the Beverly Hills Wikipedia entry, horses were outlawed in the city in 1930, which would make a horse path on Rodeo unusable to horses between 1930 and 1950. I suppose it is possible that it was left there, unused by horses for 20 years. More to the point though, the name Rodeo has nothing to do with that horse path, but with the Spanish translation of the Tongva "Meeting of the Waters," or, "Rodeo de las Aguas" which was located near Rodeo and Sunset. Ref. the Beverly Hills article and numerous other Internet sources. This should definitely be changed in the article. Timnmnangers 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UCT)


Rodeo Drive has dozens of famous stores. Why should we mention just this one defunct business? It makes no sense. If it had been part of a longer list, it would still be an odd addition, but wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb. As it stands, it just doesn't fit.

The only question in my mind is why someone would elevate this guy to such unreasonable levels of importance, but that's explained in detail on your User page, where you explain that you're his number one fan and have chosen your wiki-name in his honor. In plain English, you're as partisan about him as you are about Rand, which is why your POV has no place in this article. I am reverting once again unless you come here and explain precisely why I'm wrong. If you don't, I will request that this article be Protected, just like Ayn Rand, and we both know there's no way to guarantee which version gets frozen.

You are either going to learn how to play ball or quit the game. Alienus 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One million articles and you end up reverting on this one? I wonder how that happened? I am reverting you for the simple fact that you are doing this to be annoying to Laszlo. Billyjoekoepsel 07:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if you addressed the issue of content instead of making this personal. In fact, not only would it be wonderful, it would be consistent with your obligations as a Wikipedia editor.

In other words, do you have a point or are you just here to be uncivil? Alienus 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It does fit; I'm not saying he's the ONLY person who should be included in the article. On the contrary, I think the article should include other notable people as well. All that aside, however, the fact is that Laszlo is notable and merits inclusion in the article. If you find other people who are even more notable, then add them. LaszloWalrus 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You here to help the article or popularize this one dude? If it's the former, then prove it by listing at least a dozen stores on Rodeo Drive. Then you can keep your guy. Otherwise, you're just abusing the page. You have 12 hours to do this before I revert. Alienus 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I have only twelve hours before Alienus the Mighty and Terrible reverts the page. My heart stopped. Frankly, I'd have trouble finding a dozen stores worthy of inclusion. As I said before, if you can find them feel free to include them. As to Laszlo's notability, He's in MOMA. That's enough. LaszloWalrus 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. When Laszlo is actually mentioned in the L.A. Times in the august company of truly creative artists like Constantin Brancusi and Robert Graham, then he'll be worth mentioning here. --Coolcaesar 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Caesar, my point isn't that Laszlo isn't notable, just that he's not notable enough to be singled out this way. If Walrus wants to contribute to expanding this article, and incidentally make an appropriately minor aside about his favorite architect, that's fine by me. But the article should not be twisted in a promotional device. Since Walrus doesn't seem interested in genuinely contributing, I'll be reverting his changes here in a few minutes. It's a shame, because this stub could use some material. Alienus 08:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Laszlo is overly-prominent. If you know of other people associated with Rodeo Drive who are also notable, then add them. The article is too short as it is. In the case of Laszlo, he was associated with Salvador Dalí and Isamu Noguchi, he is in MOMA, he's constantly referred to in architectural and design publications like Architectural Digest and Wallpaper*, there have been several articles about him in Time Magazine, his furniture appeared in the Kehlsteinhaus, he's designed for numerous luminaries (see his page for a list), etc. Any two or three of these coupled with his association with Rodeo Drive is enough. Again, if you find other notable people, add them to expand the article, but Laszlo clearly belongs. LaszloWalrus 09:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nobody here but me, you and Caesar. And you're the only one so in love with your namesake that you want to insert him here. Sorry, but it's not justifiable and you are not objective enough to understand why. I will revert at my convenience unless you can make a compelling argument that convinces one of us. Alienus 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are two for including Laszlo (Billyjoekoepsel and I) and two against (Alienus and CoolCaesar). Please inform me why the reasons I've provided for including Laszlo aren't enough. LaszloWalrus 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Billy no longer supports the inclusion of your namesake on this article, making this three to one. If my understanding is wrong, I'll allow Billy to correct it. Alienus 08:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone for now, since the consensus is against me; nevertheless, your assertion that Billy no longer supports Laszlo's inclusion is a lie, as you know that Billy has left wikipedia. LaszloWalrus 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It really has less to do with Billy and more to do with common sense. The idea that "three to one" is an appropriate way to view a content dispute here is unfortunate, but unfortunately common. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are we adding the Paul Laszlo back? I thought the consensus was to leave his name out. -Will Beback 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Al 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wag the dog

I'm sorry, but it's just incorrect to say that Rodeo Drive is "also famous for having once been home to" etc. That's not what Rodeo Drive is famous for, at all. Maybe Paul Laszlo is more famous for having designed furniture on Rodeo Drive, I don't know. People don't say "Rodeo Drive, isn't that the street where Paul Laszlo used to design furniture? Yeah, I've heard of that place."

Check out this google search. Except for the two copies of this article that the "-wikipedia" didn't catch, there's a handful of articles about Paul Laszlo indicating that he used to work on Rodeo. Nobody is writing articles about Rodeo Drive and mentioning Paul Laszlo in them. Articles about Rodeo Drive mention names like Ralph Lauren and The Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, not Paul Laszlo. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I cut this out of the article: "The shopkeepers in the district are known to be quite cordial to shopping regulars or tourists, however and the area continues to be high on the list of "must-see" places in Los Angeles. Obviously, it's one of the hottest places to see fashion, go celebrity-watching and to enjoy window shopping." This seems to me to be highly biased. Any thoughts? LaszloWalrus 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be true, but it is unverifiable and POV. Plus the tone is a bit too breathless for an encyclopedia. -Will Beback 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Paul Laszlo to the article; we now have a pretty good list of people and stores on Rodeo Drive. Laszlo was influential in the early days of Rodeo, before it was really famous, and has a far greater connection to the place than Rage Against the Machine. LaszloWalrus 09:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How is the fact that he had his office on Rodeo of interest to readers of this article? More to the point, the above discussion makes it clear that other editors disagree with placing that info in this article. Please see Wikipedia:consensus. -Will Beback 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article on Rodeo Drive has no photos of Rodeo Drive?!

In my opinion, it is crazy that this article has only photos of Via Rodeo (a private shopping center technically located off of Rodeo Drive) rather than the drive itself. It's like illustrating an entire article on John F. Kennedy with photos of his parents. The article should be illustrated with photos of the drive itself. --Coolcaesar 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

The pronunciation should be in IPA, not an ad hoc pronunciation scheme. It is also potentially POV - is the pronunciation /roU"deIoU/ (which is the SAMPA for what I believe is the intended US pronunciation) everywhere English is spoken, only in the US, only in California, or where? — Paul G (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)