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.
There is some question as to the origin of the choice of the name "Turtle Rock" for this neighborhood of Irvine. The text of the 1989 OC Register article quoted does not seem to be available online. It would seem an odd omission for a well-researched news article if the Gabrieleno holy site were not mentioned, as it is a well-known and cared-for artifact in the neighborhood (on Rockview Drive, no less). Certainly, this knowledge is held within the oral tradition of the Gabrieleno people and by the neighbors of the rock in Irvine, as reflected in this website: http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2007/05/12/irvines-turtle-rock/ This information should be included in the Wiki article. At the very least, the argument comes down to POV from a 19 year old news article of uncertain verbiage versus testimony from neighbors and local oral tradition. Neither are great archaeology, but are probably sufficient for this Wikipedia effort.
Jerry picker (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Two hints: (1) WP:RS; (2) libraries. I agree that it would be a good idea to track down exactly what's in that Register article, but I don't think it should be especially difficult to do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
re: Two hints: (1) WP:RS is exactly to the point regarding use of a print source without context other than conclusion, and thus begs the question regarding (2). The source I quote also refers to the OC Register, but draws a different conclusion. Should both stories be scrapped until WP:RS muster is passed, or is it reasonable to include both (as they are now) until better documentation becomes available? Jerry picker (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to delete either story. The newspaper article, though, is at least a reliable source for something, we just don't know what exactly until we go read it. "It is often locally considered" sounds like weasel wording to me in the absence of a real source. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, although "it said so 2 decades ago, in the paper" is not much better isofar as a "real source" is concerned. This is actually an interesting question, and as you indicate, a better source should be available.Jerry picker (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)