Talk:Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politically[edit]

This is a politically motivated attack and should be deleted. Johnpacklambert (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you feel that way, but you're wrong: It isn't an attack of any kind. It's a set of facts.

Furthermore, the facts are of historic importance. Bush is a highly notable President; he has been the most and the least popular President in history. That this would happen -- a sewage plant being named after a President -- is notable indeed. It's incredible, IMO. What would be "politically motivated" is if Wikipedia did consistently delete this article. (I'm sure you won't find any such article at "Conservapedia"!)

Sure, it's offensive to Bush supporters . . . but Wikipedia is not constrained by matters of taste. And that's a good thing.

--63.25.101.172 (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was president and my political opponents named a sewage plant after me, I would say "Thank you!" Grundle2600 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I disagree! This article is well-sourced. References abound:

An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace: "... President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom ..."
'George W Bush Sewage Plant' Proposed In San Francisco: "... Looking to honor the forty-third President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, the recently formed Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is looking to change the name of the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility ..."
San Francisco to vote on George W Bush sewage works: " ... San Francisco is to hold a vote on whether to rename one of its largest sewage treatment facilities after George W. Bush, in what supporters describe as “a fitting monument to the President’s work” ..."
Satire at the ballot box to 'honor' Bush: "... They're the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, but don't let the serious name fool you. The group's intentions are in the gutter: They want to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant come January, when the next president is sworn in ..."
Re: The George W. Bush Sewage Plant: "... So naming naming sewage treatment plants—or other suitably disgusting facilities—after the bastard seems like a great idea to me ..."
Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco

Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're to be commended for gathering the sources together, but I don't see how that refutes Johnpacklambert's accusation that this is a "politically motivated attack". Mind you, I'm not sure what he means. WHAT does he think is an attack? The proposed renaming? The reporting of such in major media? The creation of a Wikipedia article about it? Well, he's wrong no matter what he meant, because it's a set of notable facts. But I don't see whether there being one source or sixteen makes any difference.

I assume you're the one who created the article, so thank you. I had no idea this was happening. It's bizarre and fascinating. I love my country!

--63.25.101.172 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's no stretch that Johnpacklambert has confused the message with the messenger on this one. Easy to do in world of Fox News where bias is part and parcel of the product. Mattnad (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external link by user/editor[edit]

A user removed the following link [1]:

http://presidentialmemorial.wordpress.com/ - Home Page of the San Francisco Presidential Memorial Commission

He stated rm bad link per WP:EL (blog), but this the home page isn't a blog. The user erred in removing the link because the whole site isn't a blog. If he applied this logic then every newspaper site that hosts a blog (such as USA Today) would be disqualified from being cited. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wordpress subdomain, ergo it's a blog. If a statement was sourced to a blog maintained by a reliable source on their domain (like usatoday.com or nytimes.com) it would not violate policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog subdomain makes it a blog? That's like saying a man is woman when he wears a dress. Aren't you being a little too strict here? This looks like the site of one of the actors in the story. And what if it's a blog? Would you not allow the article on the Wonkette to include a link to her blog? She's not a "reliable source" by your definition either, but the article is about that blog. If a blog is central to the article, it strikes me as nonsense to exclude from the external links. Mattnad (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did it fail?[edit]

Why did the proposition fail at the polls, and by such a wide margin? San Francisco is pretty liberal, isn't it? You'd think it would have passed. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]