Jump to content

Talk:Temecula, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

History

This article has parts (particularly under 'History') that do not contain sufficient citations, possibly use weasel words, and are too lengthy for the information. Suggest that it be condensed, researched and contain neutral instead of glorified language. LOLgoats (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the sentence "The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians has called the Temecula valley home for more than 100,000 years.", Is there one to many zeros in that number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.81 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many zeros, could added one extra zero. Human habitation of the region goes back about 10 to 20,000 years and the Pechangas are contributors to the economic growth in the Inland Empire of Southern California. The Pechanga band wanted to develop three major projects currently on hold or not have the city's approval.
  • The Inland Empire Ampitheatre. A proposed 6,000-seat outdoor venue theater for concerts, stage plays and other events. The site was on the west side of the I-15/ 215 interchange either in Temecula or nearby Murrieta where the city limits meet. The project has never been approved due to poor environmental impact reports.
  • Chargers' Coliseum. In the mid 2000s the city of Temecula did not approve a new professional sports stadium. It could housed the NFL's San Diego Chargers to represented all of Southern California, including the Los Angeles area market.

Although the Murrieta Bandits pro soccer team play in Temecula Valley Sports Park.

In relation to local history and the continuity of the Pechanga Luiseno people, Temecula is expected to become a large suburb predicted in the late 1980s/1990s housing construction boom. I'm no fan of suburban sprawl and urbanization, the need to protect its' former rural charm and small-town environment is urgent. Mike D 26 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Famous/Former residents

I question the factual accuracy of this section. No sources are cited for any of these residents/former residents. Until someone can cite sources, I am adding a disputed accuracy tag to the section. --Serph (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the "localwineevents.com" link. I might ordinarily have removed it as a spamlink, but it is specifically about an important part of the valley's economy/culture. What tipped in its favor was the website's listing in Wine & Spirits magazine's "Best Websites" section in its Fall 2006 Special Issue (page 16, you can look it up). --Calton | Talk 01:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But that commercial site was added by 66.56.31.46 (talk · contribs) in an apparent attempt to promote it. Wikipedia:External links clearly says that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion, and of course it does not make any exception for websites that get listed in a magazine. Wmahan. 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Note your use of the word "apparent", and also note that I, who re-added the link and am therefore now taking responsibility for it, am not pomoting a damn thing.
...it does not make any exception for websites that get listed in a magazine Nor does it say, "there will be no exceptions to this rule". Which is moot, since the actual guideline says that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content.
  • The site is a listing service. Arguably, it's therefore promoting the events listed, but that's stretching the definition into zero-tolerance purity territory.
  • The site's advertising is all (or nearly all: maybe there's some corner I missed) Google Ads. Again, unless you're proposing a zero-tolerance purity standard for "objectionable amounts of advertising", in my opinion it's well within guidelines.
Defending against spamlinks is a Good Thing, but let's not get all Fundamentalist against any and all links. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the "apparent" was apt because in my experience, it's not possible to prove any editor's intent on Wikipedia. But I haven't been wrong yet about an editor's intent to promote a website, judging from the emails I've received from website owners after removing their linkspam.
I never accused you of promoting anything, and I don't question your motives. If you had initially added the link, I would have no objection. I take your word for it that the site did appear in the magazine, and that you consider it a good resource. I did not mean to imply that the advertising on the site is the key issue; it has ads but arguably not "objectionable amounts".
My only concern was and is that there is a clear consensus on Wikipedia that promotional addition of links of any kind is off-limits, as reflected at WP:EL. And yes, that's "zero-tolerance purity", as you put it. Suppose we said that it is off-limits to promote your own website on Wikipedia, unless it is really useful or listed in magazine X, Y, or Z. I think that would change the rule from a clear-cut, objective one to a content dispute that linkspammers could quibble over endlessly. And more importantly, I think the quality of Wikipedia articles would suffer significantly. Wmahan. 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I never accused you of promoting anything, Yes you did. The purpose of the links is promotion, you say. I added them and have taken responsibility for them. Connect the dots.
My only concern was and is that there is a clear consensus on Wikipedia that promotional addition of links of any kind is off-limits
So which is it, commercial links or promotional links? Quit moving goalposts. And again, it isn't a promotional link because I'm not promoting a damned thing, your word games aside, and I'm adding the damned things because they are, in fact, useful for the readers of the specific articles.
Perhaps you're unclear on the meaning of the word "promotional"/"promoting". Using your mind-reading skills, you've determined to your satisfaction tht the anon was promoting (i.e.; drumming up business for) the site. Debatable -- maybe they're just really enthusiastic -- but let's grant that. I, who am completely unaffiliated with site except for having once removed one of their links, have examined the links and determined -- I, me, myself -- that some of them have direct application and value to the articles in question and have re-added them because as near as I can judge they do not violate the External Links policies -- a policy which you cite but apparently have not read, since you overlooked the prohibition's explicit wording of sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. In short, I am not promoting a damned thing.
Suppose we said that it is off-limits to promote your own website on Wikipedia, unless it is really useful Yes, let's delete links that are really useful. Free clue: "zero-tolerance" is exactly the same as "zero-intelligence" or "zero-judgment", a way to avoid the hard work of actually have to make a decision about whether something is right or wrong. Fine for middle managers and vice principals looking to avoid responsibility, not so fine for most everything else requiring non-black-and-white choices or things without Bright-line rules. Writing an encyclopedia requires judgment -- of the reliability of data, of the importance of sources, of the ranking of facts -- not the mechanical application of tests, tests which don't seem to have much foundation in the rules and guidelines to begin with. But then, since I'm not promoting a damned thing, I'm arguing against something utterly irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 22:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was clear, from my repeated mention of the policy against promotion, and my stipulation that the site does not contain an objectionable amount of advertising, that the issue is promotion, not commercialism per se. You mention the "exist to sell products or services" and "objectionable amounts of advertising" restrictions, but those are not at issue. A link need not violate every guideline in the "Links to be avoided" section to be objectionable. I think it clearly violates one guideline in particular: Links that are added to promote a site.
It's not as if your readdition of the links was completely unrelated to User:66.56.31.46's spamming; you added the links to the very same articles from which they were removed. My concern, again, is that by allowing some promotional links to remain, you encourage further use of Wikipedia for promotion. From the point of view of someone wanting to promote a website, there is nothing to lose by spamming, and perhaps an editor will deem some of the promotional links relevant enough to remain. In my view, this leads to increasing amounts of spamming in the hope that some of it will stick.
This is a logical argument; reasonable people can disagree about whether it is correct, but calling it "zero-intelligence" or "zero-judgment" is unfair. Your point about using judgment rather than following rules mechanically is well taken. Wmahan. 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was clear, from my repeated mention of the policy against promotion... Uh huh, which is why you began by saying "But that commercial site..." and have completely ignored my statement of intent.
It's not as if your readdition of the links was completely unrelated to User:66.56.31.46's spamming; you added the links to the very same articles from which they were removed. I would really like to know where you got your nuclear-powered hair-splitter: of course they were readded to the very same articles: that's what "re-add" means. Was there the slightest point to this, as I -- and I'm repeating this for the umpteenth time and hoping it sinks in -- made a judgment, all by myself, all by by my lonesome, completely on my own that they belonged, period/full stop/EOF. I, who added them, am not -- have not, am not intending, am not doing for the purpose of, have no intention of doing, am not doing with malice aforethought -- of promoting a damned thing. Whether the links were added or re-added is completely immaterial, your bizarre worst-case scenario notwithstanding, because I -- me, myself, moi -- am adding them because I -- me, myself, moi -- have judged them relevant. If you're going to continue to call them "promotional" -- as in intent -- you're going to have to do so in the full knowledge that I -- me, myself, moi -- have explicitly declared, avowed, and sworn that my intent -- the intent that counts -- is NOT promotional. If you want, I'll sign a damned notarized statement to that effect, though God knows I'd probably have to make a trip to the US Embassy downtown to do so.
Are we clear on this? When I added them, they no longer were promotional, unless you plan to swap definitions in mid-argument. Or do you have further hair-splitting?
calling it "zero-intelligence" or "zero-judgment" is unfair No, it's completely accurate, since it is PRECISELY the point of having "zero-tolerance" policies, to remove the human factor and make the prohibitions purely mechanical, without having to take personal responsibilty for their implementation. Hence their popularity with school administrators, since it allows (in my opinion) implementation of policies with iron-clad bureaucratic stonewalling built in. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

There was an unsourced portion in there, which I've looked for. So, I removed it. Here it is, if you want it reinserted:

Over 1,000 Native Americans (this may mean tribal members, but includes those whose families were categorized "Spanish" and/or "Mexican" in the late 1800s/early 1900s) live in the Temecula Valley. The wine industry was first founded by the Californios, colonial Spanish settlers planted grapes and vineyards well-suited for the climate, then was adapted by Anglo-American settlers and European immigrants from Italy and France in the early 20th century. [citation needed]

Recently, the Temecula city council approved a highly controversial 65,000-foot two-story Islamic mosque and cultural center. Some of the local residents dislike and worried about the mosque may attract Islamist or "terrorist" elements, but the other side of the issue found these fears are unfounded and based on prejudices.

Temecula has the Pechanga Resort and Casino as a large employer in the area located within the Pechanga Indian Reservation south of the city, therefore the Native American community serves an important key to a thriving local economy. I cannot say the unaccounted 1,000-some persons claim to have any American Indian ancestry, but the Spanish colonial legacy was not forgotten and the area's ranchos are reminders of the lost era of Southern California. Mike D 26 (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Famous people who live in Temecula

etard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.166.108 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide verification that Katy Perry attended Chaparral? Her listing isn't sourced, it's not stated in her article, and all Google is returning are either news articles about her "calling out" one of her alma mater from Dos Pueblos (where her article states she attended for freshman year before obtaining her GED) or unreputable sites that probably took the information from here. Ibm2431 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rumor had it Katy Perry is from Sun City or the entire region we now know as Menifee after its incorporation, but she attended high school in Murrieta then took a GED course in Dos Pueblos High school in Goleta as she was originally a native of Santa Barbara, California most of her childhood. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Splash Canyon Waterpark

Does anyone know the current status of Splash Canyon? It was supposed to be open for Summer 2007. That was almost a year ago and it's still not open! Is the whole thing a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It had trouble getting through with the city. But, it was finally approved, I believe, although local residents are still complaining. Mawfive (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Another year has gone by and still no sign of Splash Canyon. Yet their website still says it's coming soon. They said the same thing about Jesus Christ. I hope we don't have to wait another 2,000 years to see this thing finally get built. 74.100.48.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
Yet another year and still no sign of Splash Canyon. Does anyone know what's going on? Was the project canceled? The web site is still active, but has no real information - http://www.splashcanyon.com/ . Was this another victim of the current depression? Can someone PLEASE update? 173.58.99.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

Currently Lowest populated American city over 100,000 population

'Temecula is a city in southwestern Riverside County, California, United States with a population of 100,097[2] according to the 2010 United States Census, making it the lowest populated American city over 100,000 population.'

I don't know what this means exactly, whether it is the lowest population in the over 100,000 bracket. It is hardly notable. Plus, on Santa Maria, California it says ' The 2010 census population was 100,062, putting it ahead of Santa Barbara (the county seat) for the first time and making it the largest city in the county'. 100,062 is lower than 100,097 and that's just in the same state! Sweetie candykim (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Why don't you take it out.--S. Rich (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will, I just wasn't sure if it was me being stupid and not reading it correctly Sweetie candykim (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only Temecula and Santa Maria, but rumor has it that only one "Low Desert" city: Indio, California (pop: 79 to 97 to 115,000)is questionable on achieving the title or surpassed the 6-digit mark: when you have winter residents (snowbirds), high population growth not caught by the US census, an estimated 10-20,000 undocumented immigrants or "illegal aliens" in the largely Hispanic city and the undercount common in many lower-income communities where Hispanics tend to live in. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Longest average driving commutes

20 years ago, the then newly incorporated cities of Temecula and Murrieta were reportedly known to drive on average "60-65 minutes" to workplaces in L.A. but increasingly in the 1990s commuters drove closer to their jobs in the O.C. and San Diego; and now in 2012, the Temecula Valley is where people go to work in newly relocated and opened businesses such as transportation distribution centers and corporate offices from their homes in the Coachella Valley (the Palm Springs-Indio area) in a similar amount of time to drive there and back home: "75-80 minutes", as well rapid mass transit services provided by amtrak or metrolink. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Places of worship

The megachurches paragraph was removed due to not meeting the criteria of a megachurch based on membership and attendance per week, but the Mosque and the two other Christian churches (Mormon/LDS and Calvary Baptist Bible Church) proposed in Temecula are fairly large, the square footage is above the average size of the church and considering the property size with additional recreational activities. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Including everyplace, large or small, runs up against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A megachurch in Temecula would be notable because such churches are unusual. Now if there were public controversy or some other non-directory reason to include these other places, that might work. Still, they'd have to have WP:RS and not be a WP:NOTNEWS type of item. --S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Economy preferential treatment

Why is Opto22 specifically called out under Economy? It's #17 on the local employer list, and it's not a household name by any means. Is there a special Temecula connection other than just being one of many businesses based there? If so it should be called out, but if not I would remove. I'm fine with the Outdoor Channel being noted because it's a nationally syndicated show. Keithh (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

update: went ahead and removed. If someone has a proper justification they can re-add with explanation.Keithh (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph - Equidistant Claims

This area definitely needs amendment and I question whether its placement within the introductory section of the article at all is justified as the city has so much more to offer - it's a tourist destination, home to the Southern California Wine Country, five-star resorts, award-winning golf courses, a polo club, Old Town Temecula, etc. I don't quite think this should be mentioned in this section at all but rather moved to another section entirely, perhaps the Temecula,_California#1990.E2.80.93 section.

That aside, the introductory paragraph of the article lists the city as being "...nearly equidistant to San Diego, Los Angeles, and Orange County, California..." although nearly equidistant doesn't sound correct at all. If one were to use any map service and just input city names (precise location may vary amongst map services used amongst cities listed) then San Diego proper and Orange County are much closer than Los Angeles per Google Maps. Google Maps, for instance lists Los Angeles proper as, using the shortest route, 85.6 miles away - see Google Maps - Temecula to Los Angeles Proper, while San Diego proper is, according to the same map service, is 58.3 miles away using the shortest distance route - see Google Maps - Temecula to San Diego Proper, and Orange County (San Juan Capistrano used as the closest city within Orange County accessible via interstate and highway from Temecula) as being 48.7 miles away - see Google Maps - Temecula to San Juan Capistrano, Orange County.

These are hardly equidistant values - and while San Diego and Orange County may be relatively equidistant based on the variety of cities within Orange County that one may be destined to, Los Angeles proper is significantly further away, with West Los Angeles, where a great amount of commercial enterprise is located, even further still. Distances need to be added, or the section needs to be amended - although a set point needs to be determined within Orange County, or a number of set points which can then can be averaged in terms of distance.

Furthermore, Temecula is within but a few minutes/miles of the San Diego County border, allowing for many commuters to enter into both San Diego proper as well as the North County areas. Basuraeuropea (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have commentary on this? If no one has sound rationale for it being moved to a different section with proper data affixed, I think it should be eliminated from the article. Additionally, I'll expand the introductory section with broadly salient information. Thanks! Basuraeuropea (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph - Military Family Residence Placement

The introductory paragraph notes that the city is home to military families or individuals enlisted and serve at nearby bases - although this is really quite insignificant per data provided by the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) which reports an estimated 1.5% of the population of Temecula's working force, or 1,085 individuals being involved with the U.S. Armed Forces as of 2011. Economic Characteristics - ACS - U.S. Census

Would this information not be better placed within the demographic section of the article? It seems odd that the military reference is made in both the introductory paragraph and that there are other careers per the ACS that are much more prevalent given the small fraction of residents involved with the armed forces.Basuraeuropea (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this info can go into the demographics section as a sentence, with citation. Comparisons (like saying "a lot/many/numerous military families live in T") would not be appropriate. The link you provide does not come up with the 1,085/1.5% figure. Can you provide a more specific link? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, S. Rich, for providing commentary. I will be revising the introductory section of the article, likely removing the latter two paragraphs and placing the information elsewhere. If you would be kind enough to guide along the way, I would be grateful. I haven't figured out what to leave in place of the paragraphs aforementioned as the introductory section would be sparse without additional information on the city, although I have some ideas, e.g. a viticultural region mention, the city as a tourist hub, its historic old town, ?? - your input would be appreciated. As for what you directly commented on, its placement within the demographics section, and the cited link - all will be done/ameliorated. The link provided does not directly link to the Economic Characteristics of the city as the US Census QuickFacts page does not allow for direct links to the various pages, but redirects back to the main city's information page - one has to click on "Economic Characteristics" in order to view the statistics referenced and thus the categorisation "Economic Characteristics" was provided in the link descriptor. Much thanks! Basuraeuropea (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Found a direct source with information provided cited via the U.S. Census' American FactFinder. Made the first of the revisions to the introductory section. Basuraeuropea (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised Introductory Section

I have revised the introductory section by removing erroneous information and information that was unable to be verified - see the previous two talk page sections. Additionally, I added cited/verifiable information on the city's economic and tourism profiles. If anyone has additional information to contribute, let's discuss! Basuraeuropea (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

How to add notes on text; census figures

In the Temecula Massacre, a combined force of Mexican soldiers and Cahuilla Indians killed 33 to 100 Luiseños (most estimates are 33-40 dead).How are these actions part of the Mexican-American War when they are between non-US forces and the natives?

The census was in 2010 not 2012; all figures following a US census should be phrased as estimates rather than hard figures as a hard figure would require a new census not to be done by the US until 2020.66.74.176.59 (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph where your first sentence is located clearly states that the involved parties were not part of the Mexican-American War. As for the census stuff - edit yourself if you feel the information is incorrect, nothing is stopping you. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temecula,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1069912099"