Talk:Reseda, Los Angeles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spelling?[edit]

I could've sworn that it was spelled "Racita". Guess I'm wrong. Eyeball kid 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As its article says, was called Marion before renamed Reseda, & included present day Tarzana, Los Angeles, California until after Tarzan author Edgar Rice Burroughs subdivided ranch (in 1920s ?) and push for independent Tarzana Post Office commenced. CSUN Oviatt Library's online digital photo archives has images-dates for both districts; @ [1].Look2See1 t a l k → 20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reseda, Los Angeles → Reseda, California

  • Oppose. Reseda isn't a city, it's a neighborhood/district, and LA is one of the cities that the style guide says can be referred to without the state. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Per Torritorri. If it's a neighborhood, you include the city as well (you also include the state if the city article name includes the state; Los Angeles' doesn't). The reason Reseda, California exists is because a hundred years ago, it was a city. But it's not a city now, and should be classified as a neighborhood Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would be confusing.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Reseda is a neighborhood within the city limits of Los Angeles, although it has it's own post office. As far as Reseda being an incorporated place, I don't think that Reseda was ever incorporated. Only a post office was established, just like Northridge and Van Nuys. --Moreau36 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I believe all Valley communities, that were incorporated into City of L.A. post-Los Angeles aqueduct, were each classified as an unincorporated Census-designated place (CDP). Currently Montecito, California in Santa Barbara County, California is an example. I don't believe they were Cities 90 years ago. Two originally independent incorporated Cities were Venice, Los Angeles, California (annexed) & Beverly Hills, California (not annexed). In the Valley residents of a census-designated place would vote on annexation, with water access the issue (L.A.D.W.P. had won Valley surface & well-aquifer water rights in 1890s court decision). Sometimes a few dozen votes determined annexation choice. San Fernando & Burbank chose not to and became independent incorporated Cities. Present day L.A. City Neighborhood Councils usually have same boundaries as district's postal name. Neighbourhoods seem to be smaller nomenclature conventions; eg: 'The Canals' neighborhood of Venice; 'South of the Boulevard' Woodland Hills - Tarzana - Encino etc.; or 'Downtown' Canoga Park. The City may use narrower-clearer term use.----Look2See1 t a l k → 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pre-annexation period[edit]

You have a point about the valley communities pre-Los Angeles annexation in which none of the pre-annexed communities were incorporated. As far as the Census Designated Place issue is concerned, since the U.S. Census only included incorporated places within it;s framework from 1900 through 1930, the valley communities were not included. However, if the CDP program existed before it's implementation in 1950, the valley communities (pre-annexation only and depending on the population threshold and density) would probably qualify. As far as post-annexation, the CDP guidelines would automatically disqualify the communities due to the fact that a CDP "shall not be partially or entirely located within an existing incorporated place." --Moreau36 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana, California[edit]

The text says the name was changed to avoid conflict with Mariana, California, but there doesn't seem to have been such a city. The closest is Marina, California. It had a post office that opened in 1916. I think the source is wrong, and it isn't a very good source anyway. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

\______________________________________________

Many towns and cities have come and gone, consolidated with others nearby or changed their name since 1921!

While you may "think" that the source, the Reseda Chamber of Commerce, is outright wrong and in addition believe that it is not a good source, is all just that. It is all in how you, yourself perceive it or believe it should be. Nevertheless, the source cited is reputable and the information verifiable, that fulfills the requirements for such as set out by Wikipedia.

Imveracious (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Reseda C of C did its own investigation, and I suspect somebody made a mistake in typing. There is not a single link to Mariana, California, anywhere on the Web. The C of C is not a news-gathering or research organization but simply an interest group. Anyway, the purpose of the tag is to alert readers that there might be a problem. Perhaps somebody could dig into the old records to get the answer. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

\___________________________________________

"I don't think".."I suspect".."There is not a single link to Mariana, California, anywhere on the Web";-- This is all fine good but that makes your statements, conclusions and tags original research (OR). This is not a problem on the Talk pages but cannot be a basis for adding a tag to the article. As I wrote prior, numerous towns and cities have come and gone, consolidated with others nearby or changed their name since 1921 and this holds very true for the San Fernando Valley, perhaps even moreso during that early time period. This should not be of such great concern, it is not a matter where an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources, but if you feel that this is an egregious error then I would suggest that you ask for a consensus here on the Talk page. How does that sound to you? Thanks, Imveracious (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a typo, pure and simple, linked to the Chamber of Commerce, where the typo may have been made — or perhaps in a manuscript or source that the C of C used to write its history. It's not "original research" to check out the factual accuracy of the stuff we put in Wikipedia, and I think the reader should be warned that "Mariana" is suspect. Maybe it would get some local historian down to the Public Library or elsewhere to do the kind of research we cannot do here. So I think the tag should stay. We could always ask for a WP:Third opinion. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was again removed. Rather than continuing a bootless discussion here, I am requesting a WP:Third opinion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

\_________________________________________

Yes it was and the change noted in the Edit summary-- Tag removed. See Talk-Mariana, California. But, note the time and you will see that after this edit is when I wrote here as I did. Among the rest, I wrote ...ask for a consensus here on the Talk page. Which, in reply to that subject you wrote... We could always ask for a [[WP:Third opinion]. You come across as if this was done 'behind your back' or the like. Perhaps I did not respond more quickly and this is the reason you are upset? I had hopes we could work together on this and while researching the subject this evening, I found some information which may have been some help in an article contained in the Van Nuys News, dated December 1, 1921. Though it seems now that was a waste of my time and you do not wish to work with anyone, rather to seek confirmation of what and how you believe all should be. Imveracious (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should all WP:Assume good faith. If anybody has found new information, he or she should add it to the article, with a good source. The only dispute is whether that tag should remain. It says "Dubious, discuss." I'm not sure what is wrong with that. Mayve there is a better tag to use? As for whether the post office of Mariana ever existed, I could find no record of one in the LA Public Library online resource, here. And our own article, [[2]], makes no mention of any "Mariana" (although it seems that this is a list of bulldings and not of post offices as such).GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a query to Ask a Librarian at the L.A. Public Library to see if such a post office ever existed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this listed at the Third Opinion project, where I'm a regular volunteer. Though I'm going to weigh in here, I'm doing so as "just another editor" rather than wearing my 3O volunteer hat. Doing so may, however, give rise to the The Third Opinion Paradox and cause the listing to be removed. Though I'm usually a stickler for following WP policy and often send articles to WP:PROD or WP:AFD when I find they don't have any reliable sourcing and reliable sourcing isn't available, I tend to be very tolerant of the sourcing on history sections in locale articles, simply because (a) I think articles about locales are important and (b) the sources for the history of individual locales frequently are locally-written materials which are all that exist, but which don't come close to meeting Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources. If we applied strict sourcing standards to all small-locale articles that about 85% would become stubs and would never become anything more than stubs because the burgs just aren't important enough for a heavy-duty academic historian to spend any time on them. For that reason, when I come across a historical claim that says, for example, that East Podunk produced more college graduates in 1913 than any other city in the state (even though East Podunk had a population of 1,500 in 1913 and the largest city in the state at the time had 55,000 people and 3 colleges) and find that claim to have been sourced to a 1921 article in the newsletter of East Podunk's Women's Club, I tend to smile benignly, mutter to myself, "move on boys, nothing to see here," and do just that. At the same time, I am the first to admit that if some other Wikipedia editor more stickler-y than me should challenge that source as not being reliable that they would be absolutely within their rights, that the source can be removed, the material can be {{citation needed}}-tagged and if a reliable source is not provided within a reasonable period of time that the material can be removed. Thus, what has happened here: Chambers of Commerce do not have the "reputation for fact checking and correctness" needed to be reliable sources for any information except as WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS sources about themselves (which does not include the city which they represent since they are not that city but an independent organization). They should not, therefore, be cited as a source, the material may be {{citation needed}}-tagged (or tagged with cn's little sister {{dubious}}) and the material supported by the Chamber cite may be removed (and copied to the talk page, per WP:PRESERVE) if a reliable source is not provided for the material within a reasonable period of time. I wouldn't do that, but any editor who cares to do so would be in their rights to do so. What would I do? If I were strongly concerned that someone might be misled by it, I would probably {{unreliable source}}-tag it, so that general readers would be alerted that the information might not be reliable and leave it in place, but not ever get around to actually deleting the material unless I was able to be pretty darned sure that it was demonstrably false. But that's just me. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O[edit]

3O Response: In looking at the GNIS search page for "Mariana", 3 items come up for California. Nationwide, there are some Mariana's in the South Pacific and Puerto Rico. As the Chamber piece does not give a citation for its' info (like a local historical society would), I'd leave out the comment about the desire to avoid name confusion. – S. Rich (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you would NOT use the tag "Dubious-discuss"? GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The phrase "the town's name needed to be changed so as to avoid a conflict with the city of Mariana" gets omitted. It fails verification. More work with the library, historical society, placenames books, etc is needed for the rest of the sentence. (Or go to the Chamber and ask them where they got their info.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to do this if User:Imveracious will go along with it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

\_______________________________________________

For the most part, I have no problem with what has been suggested, though please read this newspaper article. It is the one of which I wrote prior, contained in the Van Nuys News, dated December 1, 1921.

"The Marian territory has made application for a post office to serve that district. To avoid confusion in mail distribution it is necessary that the name of the town be changed and the people of that community have decided upon the name Reseda, and if the application is granted it will be the only post office in the United States by that name. Mrs. Turner, we are told, who has taken an active interest in the canvass and to create a sentiment for post office advantages, will possibly be the postmistress. —Zelzah Tribune"

My question is then, from this article we know.. "To avoid confusion in mail distribution it is necessary that the name of the town be changed.." While we do not know the reason, it states, in the least, the name needed to be changed to avoid confusion in mail distribution. Should we not change the wording so as include this as a point of fact? Thanks Imveracious (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other editor has found a good source, I have changed the article accordingly, and maybe we can take it from there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWG?[edit]

I added a "Sporting Events" section to show that the wrestling company Pro Wrestling Guerrilla holds its events in Reseda. That alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.135.222 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reseda, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reseda,_Los_Angeles#In_popular_culture[edit]

TELEVISION In Dan Vs., S02E13: The Telemarketer, we learn that Chris's old telemarketing job was outsourced to Reseda. Drsruli (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reseda,_Los_Angeles&oldid=1203092524"