Talk:Quartzsite, Arizona

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

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

Gem and Mineral show...[edit]

No mention of it at all? I don't know enough to edit about it, but I'd think it was noteable considering how many people attend it every year... 24.121.1.121 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:HadjiAliMonument20080707.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:HadjiAliMonument20080707.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News[edit]

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/town-of-quartzsite-puts-more-than-half-of-its-police-department-on-leave. Not leave, though, house arrest. Lots42 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech and corruption controversy[edit]

This section does not belong in this article. To the extent recent events are sufficiently noteworthy to be reported on in Wikipedia, then someone needs to create a new article. I am removing the entire section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your removal. The sources were solid and the recent events are definitely noteworthy. I could understand shortening the section, but not removing it in its entirety. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, these are very recent events, and it's hard to sort out what they mean for the town in the longer term, which is what the article is about. It would be better to let it play out a bit. There's no rush to add it, even in drastically reduced form.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse removal. This does not belong in this article, adn contained BLP violations. LadyofShalott 23:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The removal was a result of my inquiry at the Administrators' BLP noticeboard. I would have preferred admin action, but as long as the section stays removed, I'll leave it be for the time. Asav (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asav, BLPN is not an administrators' noticeboard. Administrative action may be requested in a variety of ways, usually at either WP:ANI or WP:AN. Here, administrative action was unnecessary. In fact, you could have removed the material yourself and discussed it on the Talk page. Generally, content issues are handled without administrative action unless the dispute involves egregious behavior by editors or escalates out of control.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of that. However, I hoped that this would attract administrator attention, as the matter was pretty serious and may have warranted further action beyond removal. You're right that I probably should have gone WP:ANI or WP:AN instead. Asav (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, that isn't what I was saying. I don't think you should have gone to ANI or AN, and if you had, I think they would have rejected it as not requiring administrative action. In any event, this is a digression that doesn't really belong on this Talk page. If you want to pursue it further, you can post a message on my Talk page. Not a big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBB23 is correct. No admin action was needed here. FWIW, you did get admin attention anyway, just no admin actions. LadyofShalott 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse removal. Section is way beyond UNDUE, has a very strong POV and absolutely had BLP violations. Should the IP re-add it, it should be reverted as a BLP violation. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here was the text I originally added, which I do not think had any BLP problems and was not too long:

Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the issue of whether any of this belongs in the article, the cited source is from over a month ago, and from what I can tell from more recent sources, Foster is still acting as mayor. So what happened? From my point of view, the only thing that might be important to this article is the governance of the city, not temporary political turmoil, which can happen anywhere. We say that Foster is the mayor in the article. If that's actually changed, maybe it should be reported on, but certainly the article needs to be changed to reflect whoever is the mayor. August 8 sources still cite Foster as mayor ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love small town politics! Found some other interesting possible sources - here, here about this. Also here about where some of this is coming from (and also called Foster mayor). Gilbert was cleared of charges filed against him, so not really anything there. I think Cla68's version is still too much for what happened, but there might be something in what's going on w/ the mayor / city council / police chief stuff. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is, I'd wait until it settles down a bit to determine whether it belongs in the article. Most articles I've read about places are relatively boring (although I guess that depends on your geographic point of view). Maybe they have some major historical milestones that werre controversial at the time, but how many ever have current, unresolved controversies reported?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - if this settles down with nothing happening, it's just local politics. If it ends up with major cases in state court and coverage beyond local/regional, then there's something there. Small town politics can be ... interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whole process here seems similar to the "it didn't happen, don't talk about it" that happened there. Bit of irony. >:D 73.181.82.26 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Myers, Amanda Lee (Associated Press), "'Emergency' declared in AZ town over allegations", Yahoo! News, 12 July 2011.

Considering adding controversy section again[edit]

Recently, the town of Quartzsite has come under fire for the same things that have made it a national news story six months ago. The town council was recently found in violation of numerous Open Meeting Laws under Arizona state law, the Ombudsman found them in violation of the same laws. [Source: http://qtown.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011-12-10-Disposition-AG-Horne-via-usps-re-OML-violations-8-pgs.pdf] Quendishir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Even assuming any of this is relevant to the article, you can't use a primary source. You'd have to find reliable secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The document does appear to confirm that violations of the open meeting law did occur. The question is does this rise to the level for inclusion in the article. Have any news agencies brought this up in their reporting? I think you would need to show that reliable sources consider this a problem before it belongs in the article. GB fan 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first incident, six months ago, made national news. Let's see if this second thing does the same. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/NEWS/2011-12-15-PNI1215met-quartzsite-town-council-abrkPNIBrd_ST_U.htm count as a valid secondary source? What about http://www.azinews.com/2011/12/13/breaking-news-horne-finds-open-meeting-law-violations-in-quartzsite/? Quendishir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It's not about new incidents, just formal notification from the AG that they did it wrong, that they have to learn how to do it right and that the AG will be watching. This isn't all that notable - see here, 116 complaints, 51 cases, and 47 training sessions. It's small-town, local politics. One of my grandmothers was a town Treasurer in the late 60's / early 70's and she had some good stories from then. Ravensfire (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small-town local politics or not, the fact that the allegations were made over a year ago and has been a drama bomb should be pretty substantial. Maybe not to the extent people seem to think it is, but the fact that the Attorney General of the state came out and said they violated the laws should be pretty relevant. The issue at this time isn't that the town council is accused of anything, but rather previous accusations have been substantiated. Quendishir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

As it has been a solid 48 hours since my final response - and no one has brought any more issues up about the addition - I have added the section I mentioned. Quendishir (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked it for appropriate weight and source-compliance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted again... From reading the talk page, not even remotely put any effort into getting a consensus. Reverting. 73.181.82.26 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant updates on this town. Note that some of these are of poor quality (at least one is written by one of the subjects), but I included them to save someone time trying to find references. Not going to add them yet, until more experienced users can verify them.


http://www.parkerpioneer.net/news/article_5fe22ade-089d-11e5-ae3d-3f58b06a62d9.html
http://desertmessenger.blogspot.com/2014/09/losing-candidate-jennifer-jones-files.html http://desertmessenger.blogspot.com/2015/05/judge-dismisses-jennifer-jones-free.html Not sure how to find the exact issues of the newspaper with these - anyone got access to archives to verify this? Newspaper seems to not be online other than here.
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2014/140219/guested-jones.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPY3BIsVQq8 The infamous video, itself.
http://paloverdevalleytimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=19362 73.181.82.26 (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as rather irrelevant local squabble - in the long term. who cares? Vsmith (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quartzsite, Arizona. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quartzsite, Arizona. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Quartzsite, Arizona. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland[edit]

What's the best way to put in a trivia item that in the 1988 Post-Nuclear War Computer Role Playing Game, Wasteland, the town of Quartzsite was coded as Quartz? Scenario Designer Ken St. Andre is on record as having said the town Quartz is supposed to be the future version of the real life Quartzsite. Bassaf (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could create a new "In popular culture" section for that fact. You would need to provide an inline source, though; I quickly looked online to see if I could find any connection between Quartzsite, AZ, and the town in Wasteland and wasn't able to find anything. But maybe you've found a source that I overlooked? CoatGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quartzsite,_Arizona&oldid=1204971869"