Talk:San Onofre State Beach

February California Coastal Commission Hearing
It was February 6th, not February 7th that the CCC voted 8-2 for no toll road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.3.83 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)     REPLY: The Los Angeles Times article dated Thursday, February 7, 2008  (referenced in this San Onofre State Beach article on Wikipedia) reported that the vote occurred on Wednesday, February 6, 2008. Please advise if other sources differ. LexVacPac3 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nude beach & controversy
In using the terms I have used in writing and revising this part of this article, I have sought to improve the article for the widest reading audience. I do believe the words I chose when writing this part do serve that end better than some of the changes another keeps making. All opinions are of equal value in Wikipedia, including this part of the article about a legal controversy, even if I feel that I bring to the table both an English degree and a law degree.

I have learned in my experience that some legal terms (e.g., "upheld" being misunderstood to mean "held up,” rather than being more correctly understood as an action more akin to "approving" a lower court’s decision) can be confusing to all levels of readers,  intelligent well-educated  readers and average readers alike. Yet, on the other hand, one does not want to completely avoid the use the accurate legal terms for those readers who understand and appreciate their use. This is why I have used parentheses and the like to clarify or expand upon some terms.--LexVacPac3 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)




 * I have never, in my entire life, seen any Wikipedia or newspaper article that clarified the word "uphold" with a parenthetical. It would be no different than if I said, "I'm emailing (writing) to say that I disagree." There is no precedent for it, and there are probably thousands of Wikipedia articles that refer to court rulings. Show me one instance where the word "upheld" is clarified like this.
 * If people are smart enough to access Wikipedia, they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word. I'm willing to concede all of your other points, but I will continue to revert your changes if you insist on adding the word approved -- twice, no less -- to clarify the elementary word "uphold." Please don't edit the article again until this is resolved. Can I get consensus from anyone else?Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)



I am a judge sitting on the bench. I have seen many articles in my lifetime explaining such terms in this fashion. More importantly, every day I see the wrong terms used in newsapers of general circulation. For example, reporters commonly refer to a party winning a settlement from the court or the jury -- settlements are not won, judgements and verdicts are won. I agree with LexVacPac, who is genuinely improving the accuracy of this part of the article, though you all obviously have good intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.80.70 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)



Thank you, Ckatz, for moving the editor-to-editor discussion to the discussion page, where you quite correctly point out it belongs.--LexVacPac3 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)



Comment I have removed the "(approved)" from the body of the article pending wider consensus as to its appropriateness, and I would caution both of you to stop reverting each other as you are risking contravention of the revert rules. Frankly, I see no reason to explain what "upheld" means; if it really is a problem, we shouldn't be using the word at all. (As for the examples, note that they are all form external sources. Wikipedia uses its own guidelines with regards to matters of style; I will continue to see if I can find anything that addresses this specific concept.) Again, though, please cease and desist from the edit war. It is an extremely minor matter, and certainly not something worth incurring a loss of editing privileges over. --Ckatz chat spy  00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 "That other worthy editor, with whom I disagree about his recent editing of what I first wrote six months ago actually gives the best evidence that clarification of the word uphold is appropriate (if not in fact needed) in this article."

"As you can read above, he states on this discussion page[] that no clarification of the word “uphold” is needed because it is such a simple word (he says “If people are smart enough to access Wikipedia, they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word. I'm willing to concede all of your other points, but I will continue to revert your changes if you insist on adding the word approved -- twice, no less -- to clarify the elementary word 'uphold' [emphasis added])."

"Yet, even this intelligent and well-expressed editor was confused as to the meaning. When he first edited (by removing “(approved)” as a clarification of the word “upheld”), he did so NOT because it was a commonly understood word that was incapable of being misunderstood, as he now asserts it is. No, his reason was the complete opposite. He changed it because, at that time, he misunderstood the meaning of the word. In his own explanation of the edit (on the revision history page [] for this article)[] he wrote his reason for removing the word “approved,” stating on December 23 the following “21:20, 23 December 2009 Athene cunicularia (upholding is different from approving [emphasis added]).”[]"

"He changed it because he thought the words had different meanings. He understands now, but has [briefly, no doubt, as can we all] forgotten that people, as did he, can misunderstand these terms. He is also correct that I did put that clarification twice. I did so because it seemed appropriate when I sought to present the information in a suitably short, yet accurate, fashion. However, it is rather obvious that even twice isn’t enough clarification for every time that every reader reads something. This is true for us all, even editors who take of their own time in an effort to improve Wikipedia articles."

"The other editor says “If people are smart enough to access Wikipedia, they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word.” I disagree. Respectfully, even intelligent editors can, and this instance, did misunderstand what they thought was an incredibly common and elementary word such as “upheld.” Please understand that this is not a personal attack in any way, and that everyone’s opinion and thoughtful efforts at editing are valuable. It’s just that the circumstances are that the very person who now says that the clarification is so completely inappropriate here that he will continue to remove such clarification every time in the future that it is restored, is the same person who originally took out the explanation - not because it wasn’t needed, but rather, because he didn’t himself understand what the term meant. We are all human. We are all learning."

"The other editor is hardly alone in being human. The reason that I could quickly find so many examples of clarification of the same term, coincidently done in the same manner, is that the term (upheld) is worth using (it has a precise meaning, especially to those in the legal field), but it is also worth one word of clarification (approved) in a setting such as this. This is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of countless others who did the same thing. I appreciate my fellow worthy editor calling upon me to provide one example or precedent of such use (you can read above where he says “I have never, in my entire life, seen any Wikipedia or newspaper article that clarified the word 'uphold' with a parenthetical . . . There is no precedent for it, and there are probably thousands of Wikipedia articles that refer to court rulings. Show me one instance where the word 'upheld' is clarified like this.”"

"To that I earlier request I supplied this now slightly longer list of examples of such instances where others used “upheld (approved)” or “upheld/approved” for clarification:"

"-- The newspaper Seattle PI (seattlepi.com is part of The Hearst Corp., one of the world's larger diversified communications companies) uses “uphold (approve)” to parenthetically explain;" "-- Lewis & Clark University (A College of Arts and Sciences, Graduate School of Education and Counseling, and Law School) uses “uphold (approve)” to parenthetically explain in a syllabus dealing with court decisions;"

"-- The City of Jacksonville, Florida, uses “uphold (approve)” to parenthetically explain on its official website in presenting information about lobbying laws (Lobbying Law: Jacksonville Ethics Code Sections 602.801-804);"

"-- The City of Sydney uses “uphold (approve)” parenthetically in their official report to inform Councillors of the status of current appeals in the Land and Environment Court, including a summary of a number of recently determined appeals;"

"-- The government of Scotland uses “uphold (approve)” parenthetically in its official Operation and Effectiveness of National Planning Policy Guidelines;"

"-- A New York law firm uses “uphold (approve)” parenthetically in advising that the Supreme Court would be hearing a case on an issue of interest to their clientele"

"-- A loan company uses “uphold (approve)” parenthetically on their website in discussing the same case."

"-- London Global University"

"-- Another official publication from the State of Florida, this time from its Office of Policy and Budget"

"-- Newspaper: The Courier-News in Elgin, Illinois (partial excerpt - fee required to obtain entire article)"

"--The government of Jamaica"

"-- The Kingdom of Ansteorra, an SCA organization in the Texas and Oklahoma states – on a discussion page"

"-- UCL Medical School (the oldest and largest College of the University of London)"

"-- The Foundation Programme"

"-- The American Health Law Association"

"-- The San Francisco Housing Action Coalition"

"-- The County of Ada, Idaho, USA"

"I should also mention here that, as I used “approved” to clarify the technical term “upheld,” these terms have [for our purposes in this setting] the same meaning. They are synonyms."

"-- Reverso-Softissimo Online dictionary: uphold is a synonym of approve"

"-- Free Online Thesaurus - approve is a synonym of uphold"

"-- Thesaurus.com - approve is a synonym of uphold"

"-- Free Legal Dictionary - approve is a synonym of uphold"

"-- Even here, at Wiki - Wiki Answers - uphold is another word for “give approval to”--LexVacPac3 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)LexVacPac3 08:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)"



Actually, according to Merriam-Webster

Uphold means: Approve means:
 * Dictionary: a : to give support to b : to support against an opponent
 * Thesaurus: to continue to declare to be true or proper despite opposition or objections
 * Dictionary: a: to have or express a favorable opinion of  b : to accept as satisfactory  c : to give formal or official sanction to : ratify 
 * Thesaurus: Synonyms: authorize, clear, OK (or okay), ratify, sanction, warrant

Nowhere on these pages is "approve" listed as a synonym for "uphold" or vice versa.

As you can see, the words have slightly different meanings. And while they may be similar in meaning, they are used under different circumstances. You would not say "Congress upheld the proposed budget." I do see that you've found some articles on the vast Internet where the word has been used synonymously with "uphold". Congratulations. However, I still see no precedent for it to be used this way on Wikipedia, and there are thousands of WP articles that use the word "upheld" without any major crises of misunderstanding. My question is this: if you think the words are perfectly synonymous, then why not just stop using "uphold" altogether, and instead just use your preferred word "approve"? What is the logic behind insisting upon using both if they mean the exact same thing, and "approve" is a word that you feel any moron can understand? Although I do think that the words mean slightly different things, my main beef is with the redundancy.Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)



When I read a discussion page, I am reminded why I no longer waste my time adding to Wiki. Editor “A” creates something, either a new article or new information to an existing article. Editor “B” changes it, usually giving what was written the wrong meaning. Editor “A” restores what was written to its original form. Editor “B” and his buddies drop in and change what “A” wrote every time “A” restores it. They often do this only minutes after each restoration. It’s as if they have a notification system set up to call them on their iPhones the moment “A” restores the work to its original form. Soon they start showing up on every page where “A” has made a contribution, changing something every time. It becomes a battle royal over the correct/incorrect use of every word, the placement of every comma, or whether the Hackensack Post is a more reliable source than the Hoboken Gazette. Pages are frozen. Editing privileges are suspended.

While I applaud LexVacPac3 for his efforts at including a synonym at two points in his writing so that the subject matter might be more easily understood, I tell you that you are wasting way too much time. You understood what you were writing. I also agree that you are benefiting the article by providing the synonym. However, these other editors are not understanding. You can never educate them all. These few might agree at some point, but it’s a lost cause. Another will come along, then another, and then yet another. It will never end. You are fighting against an ever rising tide of mediocrity that thinks its genius because it can work the on/off switch on the community college’s public internet access PC. You have added interesting information to this article. That information is largely intact. Your continued efforts have now gone past the point of diminishing return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.75.65 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you all are overreacting. If someone wants to add one word of explanation, let him.--75.4.202.235 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)



My Comment:

I think that if someone believes that an explanation of some jargon or technical word is advisable, and it does not do serious harm to the article to include the explanation, then he should be allowed to include the explanation. This does mean for some readers that they are seeing an explanation that they don’t need, but it also means that for the rest of us that we have the opportunity to have a better understanding of what we are reading about.

What I am trying to say is that I think the focus should *not* be whether the article suffers harm by the absence of the explanation. Rather, the focus should be whether the article suffers serious harm by inclusion of the explanation. Unless including the explanation does serious harm to the article, then the writer wanting to include it should be allowed to include it. I believe that we are talking about the inclusion of just one word here. It is the word ‘approved’ as a synonym. I can’t see how including this one word of explanation harms the article, and IMO, it actually helps to include it.

Additional note:

After writing this, I spoke with my adult daughter, an attorney, and asked what she thought. She said ‘on one hand non-lawyers can be confused by legal terms, but on the other hand the use of legal terms is important because the terms also have well and widely understood meaning among lawyers and the public alike.’ She said that having both the legal term and a synonym or short explanation is a good idea in something like a newspaper or Wikipedia.



LexVacPac3:

You are actually lucky that Athene cunicularia told you that he would keep changing what you wrote before you both got suspended. In my last disagreement on Wikipedia, some nut got my email info. Then by searching the web, he got my work telephone number and was calling me to argue about my edits. There are crazies out there and they are drawn to sites like Wikipedia. Be careful. It’s not worth it. They could show up at your door, all because you want to add an explanation so that the average reader, as well as the scholar, will understand something. The average reader doesn’t want to fully understand. That’s why he’s average. You have way too much brain power to be wasting this much time here. The issue is not one of having readers understand. This issue is one of safety; while one trusts not as to the people you disagree with here so far, but at some future time with others.--75.4.27.220 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)



There is enough meaning in the paragraph for an average English-literate reader encountering the word "upheld" to likely know what is meant even if they are new to the term being used in reference to a court decision.--75.4.31.232 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)



This one word issue is getting overworked. It's understandable the way it is. Unless a sentence is so inadequate or confusing that it cries out for improvement, and I don't think this one does, I favor letting it stand as is. --75.4.204.137 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)



As a separate matter, I do think that Athene cunicularia's conduct in threatening to keep changing the edits of LexVacpac3 is very much inappropriate. These disagreements must be kept civil. They should focus on presenting logical reasons for one's position rather than forcing through threats of repeated reversions, or actual repeated reversions. You are not right because you have more time or technical abilities so you can force things to be your way. You must be right because your argument makes better sense. If this were a dispute between my children, I would go with LexVacPac3's way and tell Athene cunicularia that I did so because he was acting like a bully in that threat. I'll bet next time he would stay focused on a civil presentation, which in the end would serve him best. He does explain his reasoning well.--75.4.204.137 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)



I do not think that the explanation is necessary. The terms may have contradistinctive (different) meanings. Additionally, my pet peeve is also with redundancy too. -- Contessa Tabithina :75.4.223.97 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)