Talk:Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California

On November 9, 2008, the user at 67.174.41.43 made the following comments in the "references" and "external links" sections, respectively:

"The link for Tahoe Park Association is NOT a link to the Association." and

"These external links to Tahoe Park Association are bogus links."

I have removed these comments and added them here in the discussion section. The neighborhood association's website is not currently active, and the external link will be removed (the current page is a "placeholder" site put up after the organization's domain registration expired). However, the references are correct in that they refer to a cited source on the stated date of retreival. Since web content is ever-changing, citing a date that a reference was retrieved is critical; in this case, the resource is properly cited.

--Sirrebral (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On October 1, 2014, User:TahoePark preservation made the following changes:

1. changed the topic "1990s to Present Resurgence" to "Tahoe Park Associations"
2. added the following content to the aforementioned topic:

"The Tahoe Park Association known as TPA was created out of the need for an organization to be advocate for continual and responsible improvements while preserving it's identity as a neighborhood with historical significance in Sacramento California. It is the first of it's kind in Tahoe Park. [6] TPA identifies it's historic boundaries as

• North - T Street & Highway 50
• South - 14th Ave.
• East - 65th St.
• West - 53rd St. [7]

TPA is an offical [sic] neighborhood association within the city of Sacramento. [8]

Tahoe Park and incorporated Tahoe Park has many associations representing them they are listed in the Sacramento City Neighborhood Services Division. [9]

Tallac Village Neighborhood Association and Friends of West Tahoe Park are incorporated areas of Tahoe Park with neighborhood associations to name a few.[10]"

These changes are problematic for the following reasons:

1. The content added by User:TahoePark preservation violates multiple Wikipedia principles, including verifiability, neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
2. The topic of the article is the neighborhood. As such, references to any organizations should be placed in the historical context of the neighborhood. The majority of the content added by User:TahoePark preservation does not do this; instead, it promotes one organization's existence without demonstrating historical releveance.
3. Some content is factually inaccurate. Specially, one of the organizations that User:TahoePark preservation wrote about, the Tallac Village Neighborhood Association, does not share any area within the Tahoe Park neighborhood's boundaries.

I have updated the article to include references to other organizations in the neighborhood, as it is clear that the intent of User:TahoePark preservation was to make it known that the neighborhood is not the exclusive domain of any one community-based organization (their edit summaries stated a desire "to reflect to proper representation of other associations".) However, prospective editors of the article are reminded that any references to other organizations need to adhere to Wikipedia principles and guidelines.

Sirrebral (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Discuss the contributions not the contributor}}

On October 3, 2014, User:Espada12 made several edits, then posted a complaint on an admin's page. I have copied the complaint below in the interest of transparency (I've added italics to differentiate the author's comments from the content cited).

''I wanted to see if you could help me with a confrontational and aggressive editor. I have found they are deleting sections that are verified links to city websites. Yet they are making citations that are not verifiable as they are a links that dead end with a pay fee to view publications as proof of verification of statements in article. This violates wiki guidelines of Citing Sources They are also otherwise not adhering to wiki policy regarding neutral point of view in their titles of their paragraphs. The article I have since edited is listed under Tahoe Park Sacramento ca.wiki Please let me know if you have suggestions so I can correct them I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. I am new so I do not know all the ins and outs of the rules but I try my best. I will follow your suggestions to a T so as to not have my work be deleted unscrupulously.

Here is the article prior to my additions:''

1990's to Present Resurgence-(non-verifiable source dead link no page to verify source pay to view site.)(too narrowed a title for additions 1990's to Present)

1991, residents created the Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association (TPNA), a non-profit organization focused on community improvement.[1] The organization worked on behalf of many community concerns, including traffic,[2][3] absentee landlords,[4] and crime.[5] (grounds not neutral, and promotional)

-(non-verifiable source dead link no page to verify source pay to view site.)

By 1995, the community's activism and civic participation had created a noticeable impact on the neighborhood, resulting in a resurgence for the area.[6] Beginning in the 2000's, additional organizations arose to represent the interests of area residents.[7] First-time home buyers and real estate professionals view Tahoe Park as a desirable alternative to pricier neighborhoods such as East Sacramento and Midtown.[8]

-(non-verifiable source dead link no page to verify source pay to view site.)

I also corrected the Subheading term:

"Native Representatives" They need a verifiable source that all "representatives" are indeed "Native" to the neighborhood it could be construed as misleading the reader to think they were all from Tahoe Park and raised in the community of Tahoe Park which they were not. Also they have not provided proper citations for stating they were native to Tahoe Park Citing Sources

I just edited the article today. I have no problem with their posting again provided they provide viewable verification which verifies what the paragraph is stating. Currently they are in violation of wiki guidelines as they don't have have verifiable pages that can be viewed which state what they are saying is true and reflective of the paragraphs in the article. The title 1990's to Present Resurgence is too tailored to truly reflect 1990's to present. Resurgence while is an opinion is not a factually verifiable by their citations in the paragraph and too limiting for further additions. I put 1990's to Present to be more inclusive of additions to the paragraph yet keeping within the context of the article section of time range.

Please let me know how to progress if they delete my verifiable citations and improvements. Currently the user is violating the guidelines and being Disruptive editing by deleting deleting verifiable links to the city website where the associations can be found. I am new to editing and try my utmost to obey rules as I learn them thank you so much Alexf for all your help Espada12 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

There are many claims made in the complaint; I will try to address each concern independently:

Claim #1: Previous edits were deleted even though they used used verified links

Context is key, and that's not just my opinion, it's a Wikipedia principle. Specifically, under the "What Wikipedia is not" guidelines, the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section states:

"...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"

The issue with User:Espada12's previous contribution was that it was entirely out of context. Here's why:

1. NOT ON TOPIC: The original subheading, "1990s to Present Resurgence", was changed to "Tahoe Park Associations", despite the fact that the former was a chronologically appropriate title that was consistent with the preceding subheadings, "Early years", "Post-World War II Growth", and "1970s/1980s Decline". The new subheading changed the context of the subsection from one of period-based neighborhood history to that of documenting local organizations, active or not, that may or may not have made notable contributions to the history of the neighborhood.
2. PROMOTIONAL IN NATURE: The content added to the section provided a description of the Tahoe Park Association (TPA), its mission, its boundaries, and its recognition status with the City of Sacramento. Those details aren't about Tahoe Park or the history of the neighborhood; they about a specific organization. As such, they are examples of promotion. The topic of this article is the neighborhood, not the organizations associated with the neighborhood. In contrast, the references to TPNA are extremely brief (following the Wikipedia principle of due and undue weight), and have been limited to

::*a small sample of neutral source material that associates the organization's formation & activities to the neighborhood's reported "turnaround"

::*the listing of the organization in the "External links" section

Claim #2: The previous entries used non-verifiable sources

User:Espada12's claims of non-venerability are mistaken. The citations provided were from The Sacramento Bee, a large, widely-circulated newspaper. Wikipedia's verifiability principle lists "mainstream newspapers" as reliable sources.

By including complaints that there was "no page to verify source" and that one had to "pay to view site", User:Espada12 raised the topic of accessibility. However, accessibility is not a grounds for rejection. In addressing accessibility, Wikipedia states:

"Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible...Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf".

The newspaper citations that I used were originally published in the early 1990's, prior to mainstream adoption of the internet as a means to read articles. They included the publication dates and page numbers; this allows readers to verify the existence and content of the citations.

Moreover, the links to the newspaper's archive search tool are not, as User:Espada12 described them, "dead links". While under no obligation to do so, I included the link as a courtesy so that anyone might quickly verify that the cited articles indeed exist. It's also worth pointing out that the linked webpage includes a statement that the newspaper's articles can be accessed via microfilm at several publicly-accessible library systems, including the city library, the state library, and two state universities' libraries.

Claim #3: Statements in the previous entries were promotional and/or from a non-neutral point of view

My statements were brief, factual, and based on activities and observations that were documented in the newspaper at the time the activities took place. The edits that I made are not my opinions; they are statements made to provide a historical context regarding the environment in which neighborhood changes took place. References to the Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association (TPNA) were made because the newspaper credited the organization at the time the articles were written, not because those are my personal opinions.

Claim #4: The heading "1990's to Present Resurgence" is too narrow / too tailored

Two points. First, editors are not restricted to writing content under existing headers in an article, as long as they are mindful that the same Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above--WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:UNDUE--apply regardless of where content is placed in an article. But more to the point, the word was an attempt to summarize the "bouncing back" part of the article's title, "Bouncing back in Tahoe Park" (Sacramento Bee. April 16, 1995. p. B1). That said, I have no issue with the removal of the word from the topic, but it is appropriate in the section's content given the context of the cited article.

Claim #5: The term "Native", when referring to officials who began their political careers in the neighborhood, is confusing

Agreed.

Claim #6: The so-called "native" officials connection to Tahoe Park is not cited

Actually, it was; see the newspaper article titled, "Two get jump in council race; The District 6 seat has been a springboard for judges, legislators" (Sacramento Bee. February 23, 2003. p. B1). However, if this is truly a concern, additional citations can be provided; there are many newspaper articles and public documents that make note of the listed officials' connection to Tahoe Park.

Unfortunately, the edits made by User:Espada12 go beyond those that were mentioned in their complaint. Specifically, they deleted all of the properly-cited content in the "1990's to present" section and replaced it with statements that have several issues. To address this while leaving intact other edits that User:Espada12 made, I have done the following:

• Restored the content that was deleted due to accessibility as opposed to verifiability
• Created a "demographics" section, where User:Espada12's content concerning diversity is better suited. Editors should consider expanding this section, as the content submitted leaves the reader to wonder whether diversity was evident prior to the 1990's, and how a cultural celebration at a facility in an adjacent neighborhood is verifiable evidence of the demographics of Tahoe Park. An exploration of Census block data over several decades, as found in some other cities' and neighborhoods' Wikipedia articles, might make for a more credible statement regarding the neighborhood's changing diversity over time.
• Deleted promotional content that also has issues with undue weight, recentism, and the principle that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The editor has cited events-- concerning renewed traffic concerns and the establishment of a new organization--that are so recent that only time will tell whether the concerns or the organization will produce tangible results for a significant number of residents. While the organization may prove significant in the future, there is currently no such evidence (e.g. a measured reduction in traffic that can be traced to the organization's efforts).
• Added establishment dates to the externally linked organizations to provide context for readers who may find the names of the organizations "Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association (TPNA)" and "Tahoe Park Association (TPA)" confusing and difficult to differentiate. (Note: I also removed the link to the Tahoe/Colonial Collaborative (TCC), as it ceased operations in January 2014 and shut down its website over the summer.)

Sirrebral (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• format: Format of the work referred to by url; for example: PDF, DOC, or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title. HTML is implied and should not be specified. Does not change the external link icon. Note: External link icons do not include alt text; thus, they do not add format information for the visually impaired. See Template:Cite web.

Do not claim that a newspaper article requires a payment to access it. This may dissuade editors from verifying your work if they believe they will have accessibility issues. Even if the manner in which you accessed the information was through a pay wall, most newspapers, periodicals and magazines can be accessed for free at local libraries and online resources. If an editor respectfully requests, in discussion, for a snippet of the content you used to add a summary in the article via a pay site, it is the responsibility of editors to discuss the edit. If you refuse to provide the discussion you are not collaborating. If an editor cannot provide a source because they themselves would again have to pay for the access, consider the alternatives. Please review: Wikipedia:Offline sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Requests for sources are also taken at the Resource Exchange/Resource Request page. Editors should be collaborating with each other. Failure to do so is not assuming good faith and is not civil. These are among our core pillars of the Wikipedia community.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

{{main|Wikipedia:Verifiability}}

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{tl|unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{tl|refimprove}} or {{tl|unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Inline citations may be from the same source as long as they directly support the claims being made. In general, it is not necessary to add a reference to every sentence, but to every claim that could be, or likely will be challenged.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist|30em}}

:{{ping|User:Mark Miller}}: Thanks for the clarification. What is your recommendation regarding the URL itself...should contributors not include links to a newspaper's searchable archives? It appears that part of the confusion /frustration is that the act of clicking the reference's link takes one to a search page, as opposed to the article itself. Since this archive search page in question mentions fees, I'm starting to think that the "dissuasion effect" that you mentioned above isn't limited to the contents of the inline citation. -- Sirrebral (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

::If that is the location that you used to locate the information then the courtesy link to that location is more than appropriate because there are many readers that have these subscriptions. If the citation has all the correct and accurate information, it gives anyone the ability to verify the content without using the pay site. The link is just a courtesy to the reader. It isn't a matter of another editor objecting to the link itself. That's just the limitation of the editor at them moment...they just don't realize the link is not the reference itself. --Mark Miller (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=701370457 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120208100104/http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/preservation/registers/oak-park-historic-survey/survey-report/HistoryofOakPark.pdf to http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/preservation/registers/oak-park-historic-survey/survey-report/HistoryofOakPark.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)