Jump to content

Talk:Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant

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

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:

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]
[edit]

A user removed the following link [1]:

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! --Inetpup: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]