Talk:Harvard Heights, Los Angeles

This article had incorrect boundaries for the entire neighborhood, which I have corrected in my first edit to this article. There was also a map with the same boundaries, which I have removed. The boundaries that had been posted in this article were those of the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, not those of the neighborhood itself. I also removed a comment directed against the Los Angeles Times boundaries, which, as the Times has pointed out, are for the entire neighborhood, not just part of it. Click here to view my changes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Harvardheightshpoz has reverted most of the changes and added a photo, without an edit summary or discussion on this page. I reinstated my additions, plus the photo. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of the aforementioned editor about WP:Ownership. Also note this message on Harvardheightshpoz's talk page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Harvard Heights, Los Angeles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MappingLASouthLA":

• From Adams-Normandie, Los Angeles: [1] "South Los Angeles," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
• From Pico-Union, Los Angeles: [2]"South L.A.," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
• From Jefferson Park, Los Angeles: "South L.A.," Mapping L.A. website of the Los Angeles Times

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The following is copied from my Talk Page. It was posted by User:Harvardheightshpoz at 16:36, 30 May 2013‎ GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The changes made to the article were necessary because your editing of the neighborhood boundaries is inaccurate. Since at least the year 2000, the City of Los Angeles Planning authority has clearly identified the area known as Harvard Heights in multiple citywide ordinances, planning documents, and zoning maps. Furthermore, your contention that a reliable source was not provided for these corrections is entirely untrue as two separate and publicly posted pdf documents created by the City of Los Angeles were cited to. These documents are: http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Harvard%20Heights%20Survey%20Map.pdf and http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Harvard%20Heights%20Ordinance.pdf which can be found at the City of Los Angeles Planning Department Office of Historic Resources website (http://www.preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/harvard-heights). Unfortunately, the editing you performed relies on misinformation disseminated by the LA Times Crime Mapping unit. The publication has previously been informed in writing that the information contained on their website is inaccurate and is overly inclusive of surrounding areas that are not commonly considered, nor publicly marked as Harvard Heights by both residents and government alike. Furthermore, your citation source can be further contradicted when examined in conjunction with the popular real estate website zillow.com, which posits an altogether third set of boundaries for the neighborhood which is likewise inaccurate. Thus, it makes most sense to rely on the widely published information that City Planning and Zoning has relied on as the accurate boundaries of this neighborhood for the past 13 years. Furthermore, as a local resident of the neighborhood, I can attest to the fact that the neighborhood has been trying to correct this misinformation for years. These efforts to educate those who are not from the area have been very public, and have included the City sanctioned posting of Harvard Heights signs on every corner in the neighborhood between Western Ave and Normandie, as well as Pico Blvd to the 10 Freeway. For this specific reason, the wikipedia article was pursuantly edited in order to stop the flow of misinformation and point to reliable to sources for the Harvard Heights boundary lines. Please revert the edits to this wiki page to reflect this information.

The documents to which User:Harvardheightshpoz refers are not considered WP:Reliable sources but are simply evidence used in WP:Original research. I have been unable to find any WP:Reliable source other than Mapping L.A. that tells us where the neighborhood boundaries should be drawn. I believe that the data cited above refers only to the historic preservation overlay zone, which is not the subject of this article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The documents to which GeorgeLouis refers are not considered WP:Reliable sources but are simply evidence used in WP:Original research. Multiple sources across the internet provide conflicting data on where the neighborhood boundaries should be drawn, including popular real estate websites such as zillow.com. Prior to the year 2000, in which the City formally designated the boundaries of Harvard Heights, the neighborhood was comprised of two local neighborhood associations which together drew boundaries for the area, prior to any official historic preservation designation, at Pico Blvd on the north, the 1-10 Freeway on the South, Western Ave. on the west, and Normandie Ave on the east. Subsequently in 1999, the City Planning Department sent a registered architect to confirm whether such boundaries were accurate and historically correct, based on a survey taken of the entire area. The city confirmed such boundaries and further published a survey map in the year 2000 which confirmed that the Harvard Heights neighborhood has never included anything beyond the bounds of that map. Where the Los Angeles Times has derived it's data from is unknown, but it is further believed that due to the way in which the U.S. Census Tracts are divided, the LA Times has instead conveniently chosen to delineate the boundaries of the neighborhood falsely for ready statistical compilation of crimes in this way, rather than break down the tracts as necessary. Furthermore, some of the sections which the LA Times seeks to include in their crime mapping statistics do not currently have designated neighborhood names or identities in and of their own right, therefore myself and other area residents believe that it was easier for the LA Times to incorrectly lump some of these areas in with Harvard Heights, rather than parsing them out with untitled names. Thus the widely disseminated and published information provided by the local government dating back to the year 2000, which further reenforces the widely recognized area boundaries referred to by the residents since at least the early 1990s, is believed more relevant and reliable than the LA Times Mapping data which was produced after such dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardheightshpoz (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

GeorgeLouis Thank you for the compass addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardheightshpoz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks GeorgeLouis for bringing the discussion here. I don't know all the particulars, but i have corresponded with Harvardheightshpoz at his/her Talk page (and replies at mine) and I have the impression that this editor is just trying to set the record straight about what are the boundaries of this area. My impression is that the LA times has misstated neighborhood boundaries; pretty convincing evidence is information about signs being posted which promulgate what the boundaries are. We should not ignore the knowledge of locally-informed persons-on-the-spot. I'll try to look into the sources given in the article and comment further. I do appreciate your concern that good sourcing should be provided in encyclopedic articles, and in general appreciate your efforts to improve coverage in wikipedia of LA neighborhood articles. Cheers, --doncram 20:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Harvard Heights, Los Angeles is a neighborhood in Los Angeles, California. It is also the name of a historic preservation overlay zone (HPOZ). The former is described and mapped by the Los Angeles Times, which User:GeorgeLouis considers to be a reliable source. The latter has been described and mapped by the city, which User:Harvardheightshpoz considers to be a reliable source.

There is an WP:Edit war brewing at the above article, with possible WP:Ownership and WP:Single purpose accounts as side issues. It is time to recruit other editors for comment.

During the past few weeks, I have been steadily editing the Los Angeles neighborhood articles, starting at the south in San Pedro, and traveling north. In all of them I have used the statistics and maps of the Times as source material because, well, it is just about the only WP:Reliable source for neighborhood boundaries that there is. All the rest, neighborhood councils and so forth, lack WP:NPOV because they all seemed to be self-serving. There were not many serious problems until I came to Harvard Heights and attempted to rely upon the Times research for boundaries and statistics. I made these changes, by which I defined the neighborhood as did the Times, I removed an attack that the article had made upon the Times's boundaries and I defined the borders of the HPOZ as the city had done, but under a separate header.

Most or all of these edits were reverted by Harvardheightshpoz with no Edit summaries, here, so I restored them here, and I also made some additional edits in which I removed the names of schools and other amenities that were outside of Harvard Heights. I gave reasons for the changes in almost all of the edits I did, which you can examine if you have time.

Again, Harvardheightshpoz made a series of unexplained reverts and changes]. That's when I decided to bring the matter here for wider attention by editors interested in Los Angeles. Please go over to the article's talk page for any suggestions on how to handle this situation. Thank you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

––––––––––––

GeorgeLouis, while I believe your editing of the Harvard Heights page was made with good intent, unfortunately a considerable portion of the information you contributed is factually incorrect. With regards to the boundary discussion, the neighborhood has never included those areas beyond what the City historically designated only later. Local residents familiar with the area for generations have always stated as much. For this precise reason, the local residents partnered with the neighborhood associations to delineate the specific boundaries of the neighborhood with metal sign posts on each street corner, and to further correct any misimpressions created elsewhere (such as through the LA Times Mapping Unit).

In addition to GeorgeLouis' unnecessary removal of certain verifiable information, such as a notable resident and key founder of the LA Conservancy, which GeorgeLouis removed without comment or remark, GeorgeLouis additionally removed the bulk of relevant information found in the Education section. Prior to these edits, the section included all schools - both public and private which serve the residents in the area (and specifically distinguished which were physically inside the neighborhood). GeorgeLouis replaced this information with content which is not accurate and specifically added information including that Pacific States University was located in Harvard Heights, Los Angeles. This University has not been operating in the neighborhood for the past 4 to 5 years, which is a considerable amount of time, and which can further be confirmed with a Google search. Additionally, in the event that any Google maps images were referred to, a majority of the University properties on both Cambridge and 15th Streets have been sold in recent years and presently have been reverted to prior uses. My point is that it helps to have an editor who is local and knowledgable concerning the subject matter being addressed. It may be hard to believe, but online media outlets are not always correct. GeorgeLouis, I implore you to visit the neighborhood to check the accuracy of these statements, and to appropriately help safeguard the content being provided on the Harvard Heights page.

Additionally, I'd like to note that I am a new editor and contributor to Wikipedia, and as such am still learning the ropes. At this stage, I have only begun contributing to content with which I am familiar, so as to be certain that my contributions are relevant. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info about Pacific States U. I appreciate your correction because this is what editors are supposed to do. You will note that my entry was sourced to something printed several years ago. You were correct to have challenged it, but at least my entry was sourced.

I understand that you are new to the project: The learning curve is steep. I myself have had several articles shot out from under me, one of them I believe totally without cause. What you must understand is that Wikipedia specifically does not use first-hand knowledge or original research. Wikipedia is specifically set up to report from secondary sources. Hard to believe, but true. So I can examine any number of places with my own eyes and it would not make a lick of difference were I to write an article about any of them.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources [like your City Hall documents] should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Whether we like it or not, daily newspapers, particularly respected metropolitan newspapers, are considered reliable sources. If you have a complaint about any given policy by a reliable source, then you should take it up with that source and not simply delete the information from a Wikipedia article. How or why the LAT made its decision on neighborhood boundaries is not the issue: The issue is that you have not provided any reliable source to support your point of view, so I will give one. I offer this from Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County, by Leonard Pitt and Dale Pitt, University of California Press, 1997, pages 191-192:

Harvard Heights, neighborhood between Western and Normandie Avenues and Pico and Washington Boulevards. It was part of the West Adams district, a middle-class area annexed by the city of Los Angeles early in the century. Two-story Craftsman-style Victorian homes still abound there. The estimated population is 1992 was 7,235.

Now, you may use that if you want because it is a reliable source: I would not remove it if you were to use it. I hope in the future that you don't remove any information I add to the article which also comes from a reliable source.

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Slowly these Wikipedia articles about the neighborhoods of Los Angeles are being edited to remove the public-relations puffery and real-estate tone that many have received despite Wikipedia strictures to the contrary. One real-estate dodge within some WP articles is to claim nearby businesses, parks or schools as part of the neighborhood. This is a disservice to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. We simply can't justify inserting the name of a school or business or historical landmark within any given article about a neighborhood when it simply is not part of that neighborhood. Readers come here to find out about Harvard Heights, not about anything close by that residents of Harvard Heights could conceivably walk to. Let's try to write about HH, not about other things. Of course if one could find within a WP:Reliable source that anything outside the neighborhood actually did have an effect upon that neighborhood then that would be a different matter. Thus I have reinserted the information about local schools and have just removed the info about the Latino-Byzantine district because it does not lie within Harvard Heights. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

GeorgeLouis, how do you justify removing information about a charter school that is located precisely within the Harvard Heights neighborhood? Several reference links were provided to substantiate that the Jane B. Eisner charter school operated by Camino Nuevo opened in 2013, on the corner of Ardmore Ave. and 15th St. in a landmark historic building. There is no ambiguity about the location whatsoever, nor it's presence in the neighborhood, no matter what you consider the valid boundaries of the neighborhood to be. Please review the information you edit prior to removing it. This is a relevant piece of information that should not have been deleted.

Additionally a portion of the Byzantine Latino district does lie within the Harvard Heights neighborhood, and the sign designating the district is further placed quite prominently at the corner of Pico Blvd and Normandie Ave, also within the neighborhood boundaries, regardless of the source you reference. Again, multiple references and sources were provided citing to this information. Before you wholesale remove relevant information, consider editing it to your liking. I look forward to working with you further, and your review of this information in order to revert the recent edits that you have made. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Harvardheightshpoz may have a conflict of interest. Note the name of the user and the edits he or she made on the page that seem to have a non-encylopedic WP:Point of view. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Umm, I haven't followed everything going on here, and in particular I don't know which specific edits you are seeking to call attention to, but i think that is nonsense in this case. The editor (at whose talk page I have posted) is clearly interested in this article, and is trying to set the record straight on the size of the neighborhood. The editor is relatively new to wikipedia and does not know all the policies (like most editors). But as far as I know the editor does not show any evidence of having a profit motive or anything else. I appreciate your concern, and, sure, the editor should read wp:COI about Conflict of Interest policy. However that policy does not mean a person cannot edit. I do appreciate you state this as "possible" coi, too. --doncram 03:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Doncram, I respect your opinion, and I am deleting the tag. It is obvious to me just by the WP:User name, let alone the fixes and reversions that the editor has made, that he or she is a booster of the hpoz (historic preservation overlay zone) and not a more-or-less-disinterested Wikipedian, but that doesn't mean the editor has nothing to offer. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yes. And indeed the user should indeed consider the UserName policy of wikipedia (which I am not completely familiar with), and consider changing your username, which I know can be done, i guess i should suggest this at the user's Talk page if that hasn't been raised there, will check there. --doncram 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

That COI and a little promotional touch were concerns was my interpretation as well, per my deletion of this edit some time ago [3]. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

That deleted edit was to remove "Many of these detailed architectural features have been documented by the photographer Jett Loe through his Kickstarter funded "Untold LA" project to create a digital book full of beautiful images of the area." The link doesn't work properly. I approve the removal of that text from the main body of the article; it does seem unnecessarily promotional or a digression or something; it is appropriate for an external links section item however. I see there is an external links section item. Hopefully it does link to a properly functioning point where the artist mentioned has pics of this neighborhood, or to individual pics. I see also that some Jett Loe pics may have been added but show as deleted files; perhaps/probably the pics themselves cannot be included in Wikipedia due to copyrights, but the external links section could link to them if they are posted somewhere. --doncram 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm dubious re: including this in the external links section, unless the photographer or the photographs themselves have received attention and are established as notable. It looks a lot like spamming to a personal website for an upcoming IPad book. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Allow me to clarify that I am neither a photographer, nor an interested party who is being compensated financially or otherwise for the correct dissemination of information about a local neighborhood that I happen to be familiar with. Furthermore, I am not employed in the real estate industry, nor do I represent a particular group whose interests lie in the Harvard Heights neighborhood. I simply happen to be a well informed, and well educated native Angeleno and resident of Harvard Heights. Consequently, I have put in a request for a username change, as suggested by doncram, so as to distinguish myself as having other interests. I will be editing other articles on various topics on a forthcoming basis, however when I devote myself to a topic, I like to see it to it’s suitable end before jumping to another matter. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:GeorgeLouis may have a conflict of interest. GeorgeLouis's pattern of contributions and editing to Los Angeles based content in Wikipedia articles has heavily and predominantly relied on information from the Los Angeles Times, and this user has failed to materially disclose that he [personal identification removed] and thus may have a potential WP:Conflict of Interest. When other users and editors, such as myself, have provided conflicting sources, references and information to edits that GeorgeLouis has performed based on his LA Times source, he continually cites to the LA Times as the only WP:Reliable source. GeorgeLouis lacks neutrality in his edits and in the majority of the article content continues to call out and refer to the LA Times by name when unnecessary, and/or the information cited to is conflicting with multiple sources. GeorgeLouis has not demonstrated good faith based on his repeated failure to reveal his affiliation and potential bias toward a former employer and the same publication outlet he promotes throughout the majority of the articles he has edited. GeorgeLouis has already engaged in discourse with myself and editor doncram, but refuses upon presentation of other WP:Reliable sources such as through widely disseminated government publications, maps, third party websites and photographs of neighborhoods to believe that the LA Times has been factually incorrect in reporting certain information, but in particular on Harvard Heights, Los Angeles. Please review the editing history for this page particularly, and this user's overall contribution history to other LA neighborhood based pages, particularly where he has removed other relevant sources and replaced them with LA Times references. It is highly relevant that an editor removing valid citations and sources and replacing them with largely one source, happens to be connected to that source. I would suggest another editor provide feedback to the Harvard Heights, Los Angeles page.

I have copied here the WP:COI question posed to GeorgeLouis on his talk page.

>>GeorgeLouis, do you have a conflict of interest WP:Conflict of Interest with regards to the publication outlet the Los Angeles Times? A vast majority of the information that you have posted to Los Angeles neighborhood based articles is content derived largely from the Los Angeles Times. It has been brought to your attention that some of the Los Angeles Times information you cite to is inaccurate or at odds with other sources, including widely disseminated maps, government documents, etc. You continue to edit such articles to remove other citations and references, and prominently refer back to the Los Angeles Times as a primary source, both in the article content itself, as well as in the external links section. Is there a reason you have mostly featured this publication/media outlet so prominently in name in these articles? This topic will also be posted to the WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thank you.<< Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Los Angeles Times is ipso facto a WP:Reliable source. I'm not sure about the other documents you mention (widly disseminated maps, government documents, etc.). Each would have to be judged on its merits. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I repeat the question, GeorgeLouis do you have a conflict of interest through a prior or existing relationship with the Los Angeles Times? Would this relationship cause you to have a bias with reference to this source? Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No and no. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Information that you publicly posted on third party websites would seem to contradict your response here. Unfortunately, I cannot link to them though as they contain your personal information. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have inserted a map of the neighborhood as drawn by the Mapping L.A. project of the Los Angeles Times. Another editor has removed it. I've returned it, but I certainly don't want an WP:Edit War, so if there is any objection to this map, why don't we discuss it here? What is the objection to this map, which is similar to those placed in other Los Angeles neighborhood articles? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’ll respond to this similarly as I have before, and which can be read under the section above entitled “Boundaries sources.” How is a government map, produced by local zoning officials and land surveyors who are experts in the field, and expressly for the purpose of marking boundaries for the public to refer to, not deemed an authoritative source in this matter? As explained previously, this map produced in 2000, only indoctrinated the already existing boundaries commonly referred to by residents of the neighborhood for decades. There is no one individual producing these maps and documents, which may very well be the case with information published in a Los Angeles Times article or map, but rather is produced and verified by an entire government infrastructure. If you take issue with these oft-referred to maps, which were previously referenced on the Wiki page, you may wish to address this matter directly with the City of Los Angeles Department of Planning. I point GeorgeLouis once again to the following references which existed prior to and concurrent with the other boundaries published only by the LA Times: "Harvard Heights Survey Map" [4]; "Harvard Heights Preservation Plan (see Section 4.1 History of Harvard Heights, page 17)" [5]; and "Los Angeles Municipal Ordinance for Harvard Heights (see page 2)"[6].

It is critically relevant that GeorgeLouis has not provided another source that has adopted the same neighborhood boundaries that the LA Times has published for Harvard Heights. In fact the contentious nature and misinformation disseminated by the Los Angeles Times has been a discussion topic of its own right on this Los Angeles Times page: [7]. As a local resident, I am particularly aware that metal sign posts were installed in the neighborhood to further delineate those boundaries recognized by both the neighborhood and government, and have included a photo of one of such signs in the article to substantiate this.

Furthermore, as an editor GeorgeLouis has yet to provide a rationale as to why GeorgeLouis removed the original map posted on the article page at the following document link: [Harvard_Heights,_Los_Angeles_neighborhood_boundary_large.png] and chose to instead replace it with your own map based solely on LA Times information. If GeorgeLouis truly believes that this article is to be encyclopedic in nature and provide a healthy source of references, GeorgeLouis would have added his map in addition to the prior map for useful comparison, or else removed both altogether so as to prevent confusion to the reader. At this point, how are the maps and text not redundant no matter what subsection they are posted in?

Upon the further questioning of another editor, GeorgeLouis did provide the following secondary source which actually validates the accuracy of the references (government documents and maps) that I previously included and GeorgeLouis has subsequently removed. [Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County, by Leonard Pitt and Dale Pitt, University of California Press, 1997, pages 191-192]

So again, I ask why is GeorgeLouis so committed to perpetuating a flow of misinformation that the neighborhood and general public is well aware is inaccurate, further seeks to correct, and only the LA Times refers to? Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the map you mentioned, it is a map made by somebody who calls himself J0$hua1, not a reliable source. Thus it was removed. If you want to dispute this removal, there is a very easy way to do so. Just post your dispute at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, and somebody will help you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

GeorgeLouis, you must be kidding. That map was a replica of the other image maps posted on similar LA neighborhood wiki pages at the time it was posted, and directly cited to the same "Harvard Heights Survey Map" which only you (GeorgeLouis) have uniquely called into question because of your express desire to conform the article to LA Times information, as you have on other pages. However, not every cookie fits the mold, and in this particular case the Los Angeles Times got it wrong. Again, this does not explain why the LA Times map GeorgeLouis posted is not already redundant or further needed in addition to the text and compass GeorgeLouis already added. Three distinct sources coincide in showing the boundaries of the Harvard Heights neighborhood as I have presented: the City of Los Angeles documents (varied ordinances, maps, preservation plans), the "Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County", and the LA Times Harvard Heights Mapping Discussion page which jointly show disagreement with the LA Times delineated boundaries. The only source GeorgeLouis has still presented is the same LA Times mapping content. Can GeorgeLouis find other sources to support this disputed boundary contention? Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I could see using a home-made map if it adhered to the boundaries described by the Pitts: Western to Normandie and PIco to Washington. The map made by J0$hua1 adds in the area between Washington Blvd. and the Freeway. Any other maps available for the Pitt-endorsed boundaries?GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Removed this sentence from the opening paragraph: "The neighborhood has one private and two public schools. It is the site of a private library dedicated to the memory of singer Ray Charles."

That information is stated further down in the section on "Education". I don't understand why - unless perhaps all the sections should be summarized in the opening - this information gets stated twice in the article. Phatblackmama (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, PBM, that is exactly right. The lead is supposed to sum up or highlight what follows. That works particularly well on a smart phone, where you really want all the info at the top. Examine WP:Lead for more info on this. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some names were recently deleted with the reasoning: "not notable. Write article first." However, having an article is not a requirement for inclusion. I have restored 2 names, and have added additional citations. Phatblackmama (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply