Talk:San Leandro, California
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.
Eurocentrism
[edit]Oh, the writing on this page is SOOOO Eurocentric - if that's the right word, I'm trying to say it's written from a european/european-Amerrican viewpoint rather than an Indigineous Peoples/ Native American viewpoint. For example, The "History" section starts out "San Leandro was first discovered on March 20, 1772 by Spanish soldier..." but for anyone who has studied California, it's obvious that the whole bay area was "heavily populated", in terms of populations of Indiginous Peoples of the time, and going back several hundred if not thousands of years. I guess it's a question of Wikipedia style, and perhaps I should be looking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style instead of shooting my virtual mouth off here... but as an (originally) American phenomenon, how does Wikipedia as an entity view the question of eurocentricity in articles such as this one? (Oh, so I did look, and it does not seem to be addressed... hmmm). I'm not quite presumptuous enough to edit the page on my own to try to remove or even mitigate the eurocentric angle, but I find the topic interesting enough that I am jotting it down here... I'll "watch" this discussion page and see if anything comes of it. Tzf 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- you are correct TZF. article could use more info on Native American settlement and use. i shall try to find something, but it may take some time. Newarknanny 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be largely copyvio
[edit]The entirety of the first 5 paragraphs of the history section (save 1 sentence about natives) appears to be copied in toto from http://www.ci.san-leandro.ca.us/slcityhistory.html which specifically claims copyright to its content. 71.231.107.188 03:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
San Leandro, California is in United States?
[edit]Has California moved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.213.199 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Schools Section
[edit]This section should be mostly eliminated by the creation of seperate entries for each of the high schools. I do not know much of anything about these schools, so am not the right person to do so.--Fizbin 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Honesty about San Leandro High School
[edit]Whoever has been maintaining this page is mis-representing the issues at SLHS. It is an inaccurate picture to only allow the "glowing" things to be presented. You should also include the statistics which shows the issues they face. Omitting these challenges is akin to allowing a drunk to ignore his problem. It is only when the truth is known that the situation will improve.
Copyright Concern
[edit]It looks like the history setoin was copied from the City of San Leandro website at [1]. It should be rewritten and the information broadened to reflect something more than this mediocre writing. This page is also poorly referenced and a bit biased in some comments about racism etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.90.98 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and tagged this with the copyvio tag since it's been raised twice now on the discussion page but the copyrighted content is still there intact. I checked and it is indeed copied verbatim from the city website. The city has copyrighted its page and reserved all rights so there is no rationale for the content's continued presence on this page. The article has other issues, including sourcing and NPOV, but removing the copyvio is a start. ferretstew 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferretstew (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for taking care of that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
[edit]One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.ci.san-leandro.ca.us/slcityhistory.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The material in this article on restrictive covenants (also known as racial covenants) and the history of san leandro was almost entirely unsourced, and was highly biased in its coverage. Anyone who wants to add back any of the statements i have removed needs to have sources from reliable, notable, 3rd party print or online publications, to justify the assertions. In addition, as the removed content was clearly taking a WP:POV in favor of such covenants, any sources which show such support for covenants would have to be balanced by sources which showed opposition to such covenants, so as to give due weight to both sides, both as they existed at the time, and how the debate is viewed today. Please do not simply add back the material without sourcing. I read the book "not a genuine black man", and while the book may have information on the details of the covenants (i dont recall the details given in it), it most assuredly did not take a positive approach to the covenants, which was the impression given by having long paragraphs with only 1 reference at the end, which may only have been a source for some statistics. any sourcing from that book would have to give page numbers, with inline citations for each statement. i left in the bare bones decade by decade population breakdown, with last statement needing a citation, but presumably correct. I have placed a tag cautioning editors about this controversial subject on the talk page. If material is added back without sourcing, i will remove it again, and if added back with sources, but without due weight being considered, I will add a tag to the article itself, but its not an issue now that i have removed it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)