Talk:Oro Valley, Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

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

Contents 1 History Section 2 Arts Section 3 intro 4 current state of town addition

[edit] History Section

Just wondering if there were any good examples to illustrate this point: "Since that time, Oro Valley has created a legacy of responsible development, attempting to strike a balance between population growth and environmental preservation."

Sometimes I wonder if our suburban sprawl is totally responsible development, but I do enjoy how much desert there is in Oro Valley. Any ideas? NPPyzixBlan 06:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. Feel free to edit/reword that. I figure the town "attempts" to strike a balance, but it definitely isn't always successful. For a while Oro Valley was propelled by new housing starts, so the town council didn't have much regard for open space preservation. User:Danman083

I did not completely take note of your use of the word "attempting." I agree that it is a good way of wording that statement. Maybe we should include a little something about how Oro Valley is dealing with all the same issues that other sprawling suburban communities around the country deal with. Maybe? NPPyzixBlan 16:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. There's a lot of growth issues debated in OV, from the new mall going in, to residential housing density, to types of retail establishments, to open space preservation. I think all these (and more) could be discussed.--Danman083 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the record population growth would be something that could be interjected in the current state of OV. however, the table belongs in the demographics section, because its a demographic table, granted an important side note in the history section. It does have historical relevance, but its a bit redundant to have 2 tables, when the person reading the article can fancy towards demographics and population growth if they want specifics, after they read the side note in the history section pertaining to the abnormal population growth. Somerset219 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Somerset219, please relax, we're all here trying to make the OV article better...it's nothing personal =) I agree the table can be placed in demographics, but the accompanying paragraph should remain in history...it's all chronological and flows. It refers to growth in the 1980s and 90s, bringing it to the 'current state' section. I think the table would be better in the demographics, and maybe you can write a blurb about it there. All the current written info in the 'history' section flows well and chronologically. I don't think that should change. Let me know what you think! Mxpc05 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

um... thats exactly what I did, and you reverted it. I understand where your coming from, it just gets frusterating to take one step forward and two steps back. Somerset219 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at your edit on 07:12, 4 July 2006 (just prior to my revert) you (Somerset219) had moved the accompanying paragraph for 'record growth' into demographics, and I didn't think that was the best move...or it at least deserved some discussion first. That's neither here nor there. I think the flow looks great now and the table is positioned well. Good work! Mxpc05 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positives, on a side note, July 5th revision was what i was discussingSomerset219 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arts Section

Do you guys think OV has a "vibrant" arts community? I mean, I totally admit to not even knowing about some of the stuff that has been mentioned, but I don't know if "vibrant" is the right word. Maybe we should write something up about the OV Jazz Fest? NPPyzixBlan 01:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] intro

did a lot of cleaning up to make it relevant and objective. Wanted to get rid of the references from number 1 city crap, but it has characterists that specifically pertain to the culture and lifestyle of oro valley. perhaps later on we could edit that info to a different section. Somerset219 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] current state of town addition

Whatever. I'm not going to fight with you and try to repost my addition in the main body of your Oro Valley article, as you seem eager to promptly remove (factual) information that you personally have no interest in or assume that others have, or should have, no interest in. I lived in the town on-and-off for several years until Ausust 2005 (and in Tucson for over a decade before that), and the observations I made in my submission are well-substantiated in the local media, including print, radio and, of course, the internet. This is all in addition to firsthand observations and accounts from associates.

Certain things I mentioned which you may consider irrelevant to your personal interests can nonetheless form an important component of what it is like to actually visit or live in a particular place, and therefore form part of the story of that place. Furthermore, it is not impartial or well-balanced coverage of a topic to present only uncontroversial items or to withhold unflattering or potentially embarassing ones. To engage in this type of writing is to engage in concealment and, essentially, whitewashing. (No doubt, the town government would be pleased with your style of 'editing,' however.)

Perhaps there might have been a debatable point or two of editing in the sumbission I made. And each publication or collaborative effort always has its own 'house rules' that it gets very attached to. But to indiscriminately delete entire sections of material which contains facts that may be of interest in understanding a subject in the totality of its context (and therefore the context experienced by people who actually come into contact with that subject matter in their everyday life) is not good service to readers who want to understand the entire 'big picture.' Moreover, it is rude. It shows a lack of respect for someone who puts forth an honest effort to add to the knowledge of a subject with facts and, yes, a brief discussion, as is also often found in more 'traditional' encyclopedias. Finally, this pracice is also explicitly discouraged in Wikipedia's own internal guidelines, which I have read several parts of. I invite you to reacquaint yourself specifically with the one that admonishes people such as yourself against wholesale deletions and requests you to move controversial sections to the talk page for discussion and editing, instead.

The perceived safety and quietness or Oro Valley, the peculiarity of law enforcement in the town, and the (rather extreme) irony of AZ SR 77 being a central drug artery running through what some people would, by turns, regard as either an idyllic location or as almost a police state (depending on their own inclinations), are all readily obervable aspects of that place, and if you are familiar with your surroundings (you identify yourself as being from Tucson), then you will be aware of these things as well. There was a lot of material to work with there, and for you to discard all of it even without any discussion is unjustifiable, and also unprofessional.

I hope that your disregard for diverse (but potentially pertinent and useful, and certainly interesting) types of information is not reflective of the attitude of Wikipedia's larger editorial teams. I think your actions would make a good case study for how useful information is suppressed just because it goes against the tastes of people who think they somehow know what information people should be exposed to, and what they shouldn't.

CC posted to OV article talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.166 (talk • contribs) .

You have to cite sources for things to be included in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor. The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible."

If you are citing your own observations then it still can't be included per Wikipedia:No original research, which says "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."

Wikipedia:Citing sources will explain to you how you can cite sources to your text.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and it is not optional. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings, nor have I disclosed what I think of the information you've added. You have no right to make the assumptions you have made. Because this is Wikipedia, and because anyone can edit, anything without a source can be removed at any time. This is how it's always been, this is a core fundamental of how Wikipedia works. Before you accuse me of being unprofessional and "censoring" things, take the time to actually learn how Wikipedia works (you can start at Help:Contents). -- Ned Scott 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering, he's talking about this. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's a quick and dirty response to this. I will follow with some citations below, just to get a few things out there. But first things first. I can't count the number of times on Wikipedia that I've encountered banners saying something to the effect of "this page does not cite enough sources," or "this page needs its references inspected," or some other notation mentioning a controversy of some sort. Numerous other pages make reference to various media reports, studies, or sources but do not cite explicit examples of them. It's great to cite sources, but sometimes one doesn't always remember the exact place one read something. In that case, others can come along and add links or sources if they know of them and feel it's necessary. Since you simply deleted my entry rather than falgging it or moving it, I can only infer that you didn't even think it was important enough to mention, or otherwise that you just didn't feel people should see it. Almost everything I say in the article, save maybe a detail or two that can otherwise be very logically inferred, has been explicitly documented in various media over many years. Not to mention the fact that if you are familiar with the area you live in (Tucson) you should instantly be able to recognize the veracity of most of it. And if you don't, then you're not very observant. And this does speak to verifiability, rather than just 'truth' (although it speaks to 'truth' at the same time).

So my response is, you don't have to have stated your opinion about the content of my submission. I can infer what your opinion might be based upon your actions toward a subject I am personally very familiar with, and have every reason to suspect you are persoanlly very familiar with, as well. Either you don't like it being mentioned (whether at all or just in this context I will admit I'm not sure), or you don't think it's even important enough to put aside until sources can be identified, if you feel that this is critical before it can even be displayed (and this strict standard is absolutely NOT observed in all Wikipedia articles, let me assure you). That would have been consistent with thinking it's important but wishing for specific citations. Deleting it altogether would really be more consistent with wishing to remove or suppress the info. And again, I just thought it was rude.

So, enough of that. Here are some sources. I'm not yet an expert in linking things in text, and don't have the time at this very moment to learn, so I will just link individual urls for now.

Information substantiating Phoenix and Tucson being used as 'stash house' locations can be found at various DEA publications here , here , and here

The article "Stash City/Chapter One: Tucson's Pot Economy," from the December 9, 2001 edition of the Arizona Daily Star substantiates marijuana's $350m contribution to Tucson's economy in 2000. It lists 71 'safehouses' or 'stash houses' busted between January and October 2001. It estimates marijuana's conbtribution (including, as a small component, pot interdiction efforts) to the Tucson area's 2000 economy at 2% (of $20.7b total). I forget where I got the 3% figure from, but it is probably attributable to the knock-on effects of the drug trade. If I ever find that larger figure I will post it here, as well. The article can be accessed on the newspaper's archive for a fee, or called up through Google.

Information substantiating the northward and northeastward flow of marijuana from Tucson and the destination of that flow as being heavily to the Midwest, can be found in the Tucson Weekly article "Marijuana World" from November 17, 2005. It can be found online here

More background about the Arizona drug trade from the DEA can also be found here

And finally, as for Oro Valley's (very well known) status as a speeding-enforcement hotspot, I can refer you to Speedtrap.org's state speed trap list Here you will find some interesting comparisons. The whole city of Tucson (whose population is in the several hundred thousands) is listed as having 22 speed traps. Little (by comparison) Oro Valley, with a small fraction of that population, has 5 (4 listed under the town itself, and 1 under the heading Tucson-Oro Valley). Other cities in Arizona of roughly similar size and population are as follows: Apache Junction - 1, Avondale - 2, Chandler (actually substantially larger, but it helps prove the point) - 6, Flagstaff - 2, Ft. Huachuca/Sierra Vista - 6, Marana (a neighboring city of roughly comparable size and demographics) - 1, Peoria - 1, Prescott - 3, Sahuarita (OK, admittedly slightly smaller) - 1, Sedona - 1, Payson - 1, Surprise - 2, Tempe - 5, Yuma - 1. So by this quick poll, Oro Valley scores pretty robustly. Admittedly, this is not a 100% scientific method, and there are many websites that can be consulted, but I do think that something can be inferred from it. Plus, for what it's worth, there is at least one firsthand account on this website (firsthand blurbs are listed under the details for each speed trap) which (surprise, surprise) corroberates both the agressive nature of speeding enforcement in Oro Valley AND the way many people in the area feel about it. Further supoorting evidence could be obtained from the archives of many morning radio shows in the Tucson area over the last several years, if these could somehow be obtained (where the DJs list the sighted speed traps each morning, Oro Valley ALWAYS figuring prominently in their reports, as well as in their general banter that followed).

Basta. There you have it. There's a lot more I could dig up, but I have to get on with my life now. I'll let you and others do with these links and my submission whatever you want. I'm sick of it at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.166 (talk • contribs) .

There's no need to be angry. A big part of the problem here is you are assuming my rational for removing the text. Sometimes editors do flag things as needing sources rather than removing them, but they have a right to do either. Both are seen as acceptable here on Wikipedia. I honestly did not mean anything personal about it, nor am I "taking a side" in some issue. We try to assume good faith here on Wikipedia and not take changes to our edits personally. There is a notice on every edit page that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

However, I will tell you my rational for removing the entire entry rather than just tagging it. The drug stuff really isn't specific to Oro Valley, and your additional citations show that. That information would be better placed in Tucson, Arizona. The other part of your edit, the speed traps, while widely known and a big frustration, isn't notable. A hell of a lot of places deal with speed traps, and really isn't a unique or notable issue. However, I would be fine with a properly cited addition about speed traps, even if they're not really notable, since notability is not always black and white. Unfortunately, DJ banter and Speedtrap.org do not satisfy our reliable sources policy. Even though it's true it's still considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is highly doubtful that we will get a reliable source on speed trap commentary other than something to the extent that "people don't like them". If we do get some reliable sources then the addition would be fine.

I'm not fond of the people who run the town of Oro Valley. In-fact, they irritate me. So please do not make the assumption that I am defending them. I'd like nothing more than to make a write-up about how they screwed us all over with that last tax proposition they passed. But unless I have reliable sources (WP:V) and the issue has been published outside of Wikipedia (WP:NOR), then I can't make the addition. That's just the way things are. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. If I ever find a news article dealing with the speed traps, I will send it your way. As far as being angry, I'm not. I was just annoyed that you deleted everything, and with a curt "no." But that's done with now. For the record, I don't agree with the no-original reasearch policy being applied in this manner (it wasn't me who was doing the research - so does this mean I could never cite an adademic paper here?), but it's not my site and I will concede that you would know better than I how you would normally apply this rule here. It seems that by excluding original research even to this extent you are making yourselves too dependent on the 'conventional wisdom' and uopn whatever the media feels like covering or whatever authors feel like writing about. A lot of good information will get missed this way. But thank you for at least responding to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.166 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with Ned Scott, however I greatly appreciate the original poster's contributions to Wikipedia. The additional information is not highly notable to Oro Valley. Drug-traffic is a significant topic to many cities, particularly Tucson, and it may be better included in that article. As for the speed-trap information, as Ned Scott pointed out, many towns are known for this. We can all probably agree that speed-traps are unpleasant, but not too unique to Oro Valley. It is difficult to add information to only see it altered by another editor, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. It is the hope of Wikipedia that this policy leads to better substantiated additions to the site and solid verifiability of information. Either way, thats just my two cents...Mxpc05 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the original poster again. You, Ned (or anyone) certainly have my permission to copy and paste any of my text and references (as if such permission were really needed anyway). Sure, it could be added to the Tucson article. It would fit in there as well, in my opinion. For the record, I responded to Ned somewhat forcefully because I thought that the speed trap issue is very notable to Oro Valley. Here's why this is so. Many edge cities that are Oro Valley's peers (Oro Valley technically calls itself a town, and that is how it started out, but it has become largely an edge city, as the tech cluster and the new hospital on Tangerine typify), such as Rockville, MD, Carlsbad, CA, Broomfield and Lone Tree/Parker/Centennial/Highlands Ranch, CO, etc. share many (though not necessarily all) of the same characteristics: low crime, lots of good 'new economy' jobs, nice houses, good schools, good services, high 'quality of life,' peace and quiet, etc. But they do not all have the agressive speeding enforcement, or agressive law enforcement in general. (In fact, to be fair, the south Denver suburbs, even excluding Columbine, have had a long-running problem with youth violence.) This is thus a unique quality for this type of town. And that is why this criterion is, in my opinion, at least as notable as all the others. The other things are present elsewhere, too. It's the combination of traits that makes each place, like each person, unique. The drug running is notable because it is a grotesque juxtaposition of idyll and hard business. They form an important part of the essence of the place, as it is distinguished from similar places like it, and therefore readers who come to the article will not be fully informed if the information is not present.

That being said, I will agree that Ned is right about reliable sources being desirable things. It's just that if it were up to me, I would have more leniency in certain areas, if the greater 'good' were better served by it in specific circumstances. But it's a moot point now. I promised Ned I wouldn't repost anything from my original post onto the main page, and that I would send him articles on the speed traps if I find them. In the meantime, anyone can use any portions of what I worte anywhere they want, if they themselves have sources they think are pertinent. So I might check back at some point, but I'm not sure when I might have time.