Talk:Marina District, San Francisco

untitled

Absolutely brilliant. Well done!! Signed on behalf of 192.216.236.65

Geography

Removing this sentence because it contradicts a another statement about Lombard St. bisecting the Marina:

The concrete-paved Lombard St runs along the southern edge of The Marina connecting it to Marin County.

Marina Girl I (re: Morford)

You know, I wasn't to sure about this Marina Girl stuff, but here comes Mark Morford today in the Chron mentioning the very genre:

Notes & Errata

"And the {SUV} salesman sees that look and just smiles and licks his chops and points out how this 4-ton hunk of environmental devastation can seat nine and tow a large tractor or maybe 15 head of cattle, plus it has 27 cup holders and three DVD players and a built-in sense of false superiority, and the vaguely depressed regularly emasculated suburban dad or the gum-snapping Marina girl with way too much of her parents' money and way too little self-defined taste takes one look and goes, oooh."

'Guess it must be true! :-)

I guess somebody better write the linked but non-existent article!

Atlant 17:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, someone should WRITE the free-standing article.

Marina Girl II

Okay, while the Marina Girl/Marina Guy stuff is really very funny (and not terribly far off the mark), don't you think it should be made a little clearer that this is a very specific stereotype of a very specific segment of the population? It's kind of jarring, coming before the dead-serious "History" section. I also feel like a citation on the statistics the article leads with is neccessary. --Seja430 21:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just move the funny stuff below the serious. And create a Labradoodle page. Ancawonka 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedia! Tears were rolling down my eyes reading this article.

I love this article. The Marina Girl stuff would be funny if the ressentiment weren't so palpable, but the ressentiment is funnier. "oh, that Benz is probably leased... or Daddy bought it..." And equating the east coast, Boston, southern California, and the midwest is just the tastiest sort of dumb Bay Area provincial snobbery.

One semi-interested Wikipedian writes: "while miss the original article, since it is referenced so many times, I can only give sparse anecdotal evidence, instead. Of the three Marina girls I've dated, (a) the first was a relocated blond trust-fund baby from Manhattan, (b) the second hat too many hard cocktails at Matrix Fillmore while I had one white-wine spritzer only to behave inappropriately while I escourted her home, and (c) the third (also blond) had the SUV and the silicone, but not much else goin on. But the sampling may also be a reflection of the courtier - anecdotal evidence, all."

Marina Girl (etc.) III

Should I be offended that all the other neighborhoods are merely factual and the only totally scathing one is the Marina??? Read through the others. So unfair! I love it in the Marina -- bad rap and all. :) Wildcat12 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Marina Girl IV

The large sections that have been removed regarding "Marina Girl" and other Marina District "types" is not verifiable and violates Wikipedia's point-of-view policy. While it may be appropriate for a blog or other publication, it is not appropriate for an encylopedia. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for removing the "Marina Girl" and other stereotypical "facts" about the Marina from this site. Stereotyping and flat-out insulting San Francisco residents is a poor way to gain credibility -- and fans. Wildcat12 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is why your previous insulting comments with stereotypical "facts" about various other districts in San Francisco give your opinion more credability here? With that logic, you should remove your previous post ("Marina Girl (etc.) III"). Your vote for removal by authoring content containing the exact same material you cite as the reason for removal is absolutely ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.40.55.65 (talk • contribs) .

You know, I do agree with you... I was merely making my point clear that insulting the Marina like Wikipedia did is like posting the exact same stereotypes and "facts" to the other SF neighborhoods -- all of which are ridiculous. I apologize that my sarcasm didn't come across. Seeing as I do not believe the stereotypes I wrote (since they were just that), I think it is fair that I remove them as well. It was just to prove a point that what Wikipedia posted for the "Marina Girl" was just a bunch of lame stereotypes that fed to the problem and should NOT be posted on an online encyclopedia that is pitching itself as credible. Wildcat12 06:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I miss the Marina Girl section. It's the reason I refer people to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.38.169 (talk • contribs) .

I miss it too. It's why I started using wikipedia in the first place.. btw, since when is sociology really "verifiable"? it's not like Mathmatics, Biology or phyisics. It's some sort of sudo science that only comes to a conclusion based on agreement between whom ever cares about that specific topic.. Shouldn't have been removed. $.02 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.224.36 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed: Bring it back, please.

Have you been to the SF Marina? Go there. It's easily verifiable. In all seriousness, while you may consider it in "violation" of the POV policy, it is not. The article is quite clear in that it is referring to locally held stereotypes (which are quite well known and discussed). Further discussion (e.g. "When a Marina Girl turns 30 she graduates from Turf status and is now known as a “Cougar”") is referring to locally held terminology for this stereotype. I agree that some parts could use some POV cleanup to specify that they're referring to commonly held local stereotypes, but removing the whole section seems ludicrous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.40.55.65 (talk • contribs) .

Really, folks, there's no reason why the content couldn't be put into a free-standing article, but I've watched the development of this page since it was quite young, and the Marina Girl stuff long-ago overwhelmed the encylopaedic content of this page. I'm glad someone finally took the stand of removing it. If you like the content, be bold and create the Marina girl article with appropriate disambiguation links at Cougar and all the necessary bells-and-whistles.

Atlant 13:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of the content of the Marina Girl essay is salvageable under neutral-point-of-view and verifiability policies. Yes, sociology issues have to be sourced too. (The sfgate article mentioned above is a start). This is why you'll find very few articles about stereotypes, unless that stereotype has been independently documented. Yuppie is one example. It's important to note that the Yuppie article is also written in a reasonably neutral manner. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The sociology section should have been renamed the "Stereotype" section or relocated to a Marina District Stereotype page.

Bummer about removing Marina Girl. Sometimes the truth does hurt...I bartend, two girls ordered some froo froo drinks I had never heard of... So I asked "What, do you live on Chestnut?" They shyly and blushingly nodded their heads. Just because it was a funny picture doesn't mean that we don't love Marina Girls as much as others. They should be happy to receive so much attention. IT was a very funny piece.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.155.235 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia isn't intended to be a publication of humor. Check out The Uncylopedia for that sort of thing. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So call it the "Stereotype" section instead of the "Sociology" section if you really think that people might not realize that the section is fondly poking fun of area denizens. That the stereotype exists is certainly true, and the generalization captures nicely the Marina's ambiance in a fun manner. Just because wikipedia takes itself seriously doesn't mean it has to be devoid of humor. Even Durrett's graduate level Probability Theory textbook has jokes about prostitutes and wife-swapping.

Marina Girl V : The Redirect

Marina girl entry created and sociology section moved into it, modeled on Yuppie page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.64.3 (talk • contribs) .

Put back Marina girl if you want me to ever use this site again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.232.31 (talk • contribs)

Marina Page

You guys should really get off your high horses. That page made wikihistory throughout San Francisco and was a buzz within two days of its posting. There should at least be an archive link. It was funny because it was TRUE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.229.125 (talk • contribs)

Here, here. Humor aside, the Marina Girl section contains key social, cultural yet very true information about the neighborhood. When you move to San Francisco you learn that there are hipsters in the Mission, there are gay people in the Castro, and the Marina is home to the stereotypical Marina people. Not -everyone- in the Marina fits that stereotype, but a hell of a lot of them do and if you're honest you'll admit that. This is a fundamental fact about modern day San Francisco and the Marina and should be mentioned in wikipedia. At -least- it deserves an external link.

I ask the person who removed the external link to this content (and anyone else who thinks this doesn't deserve an external link) to justify here why the other external links currently on the article are more deserving of mention than that one. I'll add a new external link if I don't see a reasonable argument against doing so within 3 days. Cheesebikini 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marina_Girl. Do not re-add the content, or a link for that matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Landfill category

I removed the landfill category from the article because I do not think that the article belongs in it. I think that the category is meant for landfills purposely built for sanitation. The Marina District, on the other hand, was created by filling in the bay with mud, sand and debris. Also, just because a place is built on a landfill does not make it a landfill, just like a town built on a mountain is not a mountain. If people want some sort of landfill category, I suggest creating a category like "settlements built on landfill" ("settlements" allows cities, districts, suburbs and unincorporated towns to be included). There are many places like this, including parts of Boston, New York, New Orleans and Budapest (filled in river). -- Kjkolb 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Demographics -- Not Encyclopedic

There is a lot of unsourced material about the changing demographics in the Marina section, the population of swingers, the crowds of tourists, etc. Please provide citations or remove your opinions. --Crunch (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It actually is sourced from a reputable location. Look at the article carefully before making such claims and vandalizing the article. Removing tags. --User:Eman007 28 April 2010

It is not vandalism to dispute missing or unclear sources. Please explain which sources document the "swingers" claim as well as the claim that "ost noted and famous for its demographic population which has rapidly shifted in the 1980s from mostly middle class families and pensioners, to twenty something to thirty something young urban professionals." Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Crunch. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it were true -- heck, it's where Barry Zito lives these days -- a claim like that has to be sourced. The only reason I'm not deleting it right now is Eman's claim there's a source for it. Please add it, ASAP. Innocent76 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources are there and linked. Read the article carefully! Secondly, Crunch's felt that the sources weren't "encyclopedic" to which not only they are, but according to wikipedia guidelines, they don't necessarily have to be . Stop vandalizing this article to suit your personal opinions or I will have it locked! --User:Eman007 30 April 2010

It is appropriate to randomly point out the population of whites in the third sentence? Like that's really the most important or informative thing you can say about the neighborhood? I looked through the other articles for SF neighborhoods, and you don't see them talking about the % of Mexicans in the Mission or the % of blacks in the Tenderloin. Because that would be racist. So why is it allowed in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaned (talk • contribs) 02:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marina District, San Francisco. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715112459/http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/LiquefactionCGS/index.html to http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/LiquefactionCGS/index.html

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) 14:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)