Talk:Eagle Rock, Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Request for update

My God: this page needs some SERIOUS work! How is it that about 1/3 of the history of Eagle Rock, which at one point was an independent city before being annexed by Los Angeles (in the 1920's, I think) is taken up by descriptions of two serial killers? (the previous unsigned comment was left by on 08:29, 21 August 2006 Blintz )

Class Warfare

Look gang, I'm fed up with seeing "upper class" "middle class" "upper middle class" wars on this page. Leave it at "upper middle class" for now, unless you can SOURCE your information. If I see one more edit on class, I will be removing the line for being WP:OR. You have been warned. Timmccloud 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "class" distinction is WP:OR unless you can substatiate your claim. I will continue to remove "class" based edits until someone can prove it. Timmccloud 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello 76.232.121.133, thank you for your edits to wikpedia. I lived in Eagle Rock for 23 years, I have relatives there, I went to school there, and I know the community well. I personally agree with your opinion that Eagle is a upper middle class neighborhood, HOWEVER opinions aside, this is an encyclopeda, and if you make a assertation, you must back it up with factual evidence. If this is true, you can find any numerous places where the neighborhood is described that meets the wikipedia policy of Reliable Sources, otherwise your opinion is considered Original Research, and that is specifically prohibited. So please state your references in your edits, in the meantime I have removed them and will continue to do so until they are backed up with fact. I am also putting a copy of this message on the article talk page. Tim McCloud, ERHS Class of '79 Timmccloud 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Rock deserves better

I am coming in and the tail-end of this silly argument, and may I just say, that anyone who has lived in and around Eagle Rock for the last 49 years (like I have), would know that while it has a good sized "upper-middle class", it is far out-numbered by working class families....soooo, I have I recently edited it as , "working class AND upper middle class", THAT should satisfy the boo-birds. And I agree with the fellow about the silly absurd serial killer inclusions. I also added some historcal info, corrections( all of sudden a few yuppies move in and its the center of the "hipster" universe??? PUHLEEZE!!!, Eagle Rock has been harboring the counter culture since the 20s for chrissakes!!!) and other bits here and there. Hey, Eagle Rock deserves better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garagehero (talk • contribs).

Check out similar pages

There is a swath of cool communites , all the way from East Hollywood through Silverlake, Los Feliz, Echo Park, Atwater, snaking up through Eagle Rock, Highland Park ,South Pasadena and ending up in Pasadena, all connected. They have some good Wikpages, Echo Park, Silverlake etc., and they are similar communites.There is a real renaissance going on here, buddy boy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garagehero (talk • contribs).

Matthew Lauder Controversy

Well gang, it looks like the Harry Lauder descendants are now using an IPSock to further their vanity agenda again;Special:Contributions/81.152.59.196. It was stated in the edit log once before, let me be perfectly clear here: If the "notable resident" doesn't deserve a wikipedia page on their own right, then they are not notable enough for wikipeda references. Being notable within a specific community is *NOT* notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. Matthew Lauder, and Matt Jr are just people with a famous relative; that does not make them worth an encyclopedia entry on their own right. Please remove the vanity - if you don't there will be other people that will. Timmccloud (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, as if I read the edit hisory correctly you were originally in favour of retaining him here. Is it Wikipedia's explicit policy that every reasonably notable person must have an article page of their own? Matthew Lauder was notable in his own right in L.A.County at the time. 81.151.85.249 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to change their minds, that's what having an open mind does to you. No, they aren't required to have their own article, however being locally famous doesn't make you universally famous, and being famous years ago does not mean your moment in the sun can stand the test of time. Having a wikpieda page dedicated to you is a very good smoke test; if the consensus of wikipedia editors allow the page to remain, then there is a good chance your personal assertation of their notariety will stand up to peer review. Right now, your edits do NOT pass peer review. Timmccloud (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Warfare

Would anyone like to comment why the entry on Gang activity in the history keeps getting removed? Is this some Real Estate agent trying to sell houses in ER, or some gang member displeased with the bad publicity? Timmccloud (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be under the Hispanics section. 108.65.248.139 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smoggy Photo

The flagship photo is very nice, with the rock on one side and the full moon on the other, but can't we get something from a slightly less smoggy day? And yes, I know that's normal but still - I'd like something better to represent Eagle Rock as the first photo... Timmccloud (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining removal of Hillside Strangler and kidnapping.

Describing two incidents of murder in a general section on the history is inappropriate and irrelevant. Oxy-Librarian (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Residents

Copied from the GeorgeLouis talk page: A few things about your edits from someone with extensive knowledge of the area. Just because there is no source on a persons page for where they reside is not carte blanche reason to removed someone from a locality page. Many of the residents you removed are sourced from school yearbooks and other good sources that are not necessarily on their personal page, nor happen to be in an electronic form (which is NOT required for Wikipedia). As for the movie industry, many of the films referenced have specific credits at the end of the movies mentioning eagle rock, and any community within a hour of Hollywood has extensive history in the community which is part of their story. Everything you removed was valid, encyclopedic content, with very poor justification. If you want to continue improving the page, I look forward to working with you, but please discuss your edits on the talk page were consensus can be reached instead of wholesale deletions. Your good faith edits have been Reverted until appropriate discussion of your changes reaches consensus. Timmccloud (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the GeorgeLouis talk page: No problem. I look forward to you or somebody else inserting the proper sources. See you on the Talk Page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire idea that a person, drove through, or gave a speech, or stayed for a few weeks for a film, does NOT make them a resident...or does it? Can we discuss this and get a concensus??Coal town guy (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does not. My feeling is that for someone to be listed as a resident we should have a reliable source that states that they notably had a residence there. Staying with a relative during filming doesn't strike me as enough. This is especially true in Los Angeles, where probably most notable people in the last 100 years have spent a few weeks there doing this and that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. HOWEVER, in all fairness, lets see what others think. You make a VERY good point about actors and relatives......its a slippery slope.Coal town guy (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is the wiki standard on Notable Residents.... SO, Brando is a NO. The entire list will need to be reviewed...Coal town guy (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's essay, not even a guideline. I more or less agree with the essay (except for the part about seasonal; some seasonal residents are notable, e.g. Kennedys in Hyannisport), but it has very little weight and will not override a local consensus against it. It's still a good idea to wait to see what others think before revising the list based on the essay.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedCoal town guy (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my point about the essay - if you look in the essay's talk page seasonal/short term residents issue came up. While I heartily agree that "George Washington slept here" is something to avoid, Brando had a very specific impact on the community. Notice in the TIME/LIFE article his aunt owned the house, over his life he spent a lot of time in Eagle Rock (not just the one event) while filming in LA. I'm sure you don't need 8 footnotes for every resident; I believe that Brando's inclusion is important. Another example is the President, Barak Obama - he spent only one year at Occidental College, but it's well documented and he mentions that the time was a crucial point in refining his personal direction towards public service, which makes it notable (I see that's his entry was removed even earlier than this discussion <sigh>). Aldous Huxley Spent a significant time in Eagle Rock, even using a (renamed) Occidental College in one of his books, which makes him notable (note: Aldous's article states a vague "Hollywood" as where he lived, Hollywood is an extremely small (and generally low income) residential neighborhood of LA - many actors live in areas like echo park, Glendale, Pasadena, la cresenta and still say they live in "Hollywood", and Aldous is no exception). Anyway, my 2cents. Thank you both for bringing this to the talk in order to create consensus. Timmccloud (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood is 6 times the size of Eagle Rock by area, friend. Take that "extremely small...residential neighborhood" remark back right now or we can meet with pistols at dawn on neutral ground at the corner of Sunset and Alvarado and settle this with honour.

This is a slippery slope. I get what you mean and YES, in some instances, you are correct. BUT. consider a Hollywood type place. Imagine all of the stars, celebrities etc etc. Where does one draw a line. In theory, New York City could have thousands upon thousands of Notable Residents, BUT the real question, per the essay and per common sense, did they actually reside there? IMO, NO. BUT, I believe that a consensus should be reached. Not only for this article, but also for many many others. I did indeed check out the remainders, I would say, about 95% of the list is good. It just so happens, I love Brando and his films as well as qa few other actors. Some identify with an area they did a flm in and will indeed cite, they grew there etc etc. Others, could not give a tinkers dam. Its a place they did work in and moved on. Just my 2 cents as it wereCoal town guy (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.202 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

When you added "moved to a temporary location in Downtown Los Angeles until 1898 when it" to the Eagle Rock, Los Angeles article, did you check it against the source for that paragraph? I tried and it was a dead link. Do you have access to it, so you can correct the link? If you didn't take your information from that source, can you just tell us where you got it from? Thanks? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Eagle Rock, Los Angeles

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Eagle Rock, Los Angeles. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Days of Thunder

What is wrong with Wikipedians (besides myself)?

I did not write the popular culture bit about the fictional character Cole Trickle being mentioned as "from Eagle Rock" in the article. I did add a source, which has been repeatedly deleted before the actual language was finally removed just because I supposedly provided an "unreliable source".

The page itself asked for sources - so when I provide one it is not allowed? What is up with that?

As for the source being "unreliable" - it accurately transcripts the relevant line within the movie. How in the heck can a site that is telling the truth be unreliable? 47.137.189.144 (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for an answer to your question. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eagle Rock, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]