Talk:Arcata, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Early Edit discusion 2 POV? 3 Arcata Eye / North Coast Journal 4 The cultural importance of the Plazoid 5 Quality of Life 6 Added External Link 7 History 8 Removal of Picture 9 Notable People 10 Comment box 11 SoSa 12 Notes removed from code on main page 13 Removal of Minor theater claim.

[edit] Early Edit discusion

User at 137.150.23.170, please do not edit my comments, reversing the meaning, as you did on Aug 30th. I've restored my origional comments, and paraphrased yours inline, as is the usual style, (see Wikipedia:Talk_page) Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In the culture and institutions section, 2nd paragraph, it says:

Work in Arcata consists largely of the dumpster-diving...

Dumpster-diving obviously isn't "work" in the usual sense, as in employment. Perhaps this should be rewritten and expanded to include details on the unemployment and homeless, as well as high occurance of dumpster-diving. Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Dumpster-diving *is* work in the usual sense, as in employment. -137.150.23.170

I disagree. Usual employment includes a employer and an employee. The employer expects the employee to conduct some work for some amount of compensation, usually money. Since a dumpster-diver does not have an employer, this is not employment, but it might be called an occupation. However, this is all beside the point. The real point of this that at the very begining of the paragraph dealing with employment, dumpster-diving is listed as the first item. This is leads the reader to the conclusion that most people in Arcata are unemployed and spend their days sifting through others trash. While I agree that Arcata may have a higher rate of dumpster-diving than many other US cities, it is my no means what the majority do on a daily basis. I have no objection to the inclusion of a note about dumpster-diving, but feel that it should be in it's correct context (unemployment), and backed by factual data. Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, but that is bullshit. What about the "self-employed"? I do not think that your paradigm of master-to-slave relationship is dominant in Arcata ("prevalant" maybe, but not dominant).

The 3rd paragraph is:

The city is dis-served by a weekly tabloid, the Arcata Eye. The newspaper is noted for its bigoted use of police reports to instigate violence against unhoused people while profiting from the entertainment value of sensationalized hate-mongering. In response, an independent publication, the Plazoid started to document civil and human rights abuses perpetrated against the unhoused.

Use of the word "dis-served" isn't really appropriate here as it is an opinion of the author which may or may not be a majority opinion. The "dis" part should probably be removed. Additionally, if the paper is, in fact, noted for it's bigoted police reports, can someone provide links to the notes? Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word "mis-served" is really appropriate here as it is a majority opinion. The "mis" part should probably be capitalized. Additionally, the paper is, in fact, noted for it's bigoted police reports, and it was disappointing to see the Arcata Eye use Wikipedia to advertise its un-journalistic atrocity. -137.150.23.170

The Wikipedia:NPOV page, says assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a publication called the Arcata Eye, it's articles are written for and about Arcata, it is printed on newsprint, I am unaware of it's dimensions. Hence I feel that the statment "The city is served by a weekly newspaper, the Arcata Eye" is factual. However, use of the word "mis-served" (or "dis-served") is an assertation of on opinion. One may assert that there *is* an opinion, but one should not assert that the opinion is correct or incorrect. Finally, this is a page about Arcata the city, not about the Arcata Eye publication. It should be enough to state that the newspaper exists. Discussions about the newspaper and allegations of bias, might be best placed on a page about the newspaper itself, such as has been done for the NY_Times Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, but if you think that the word "served" is nuetral, then you need to check your free on-line dictionary. The Arcata [L]Eye has done a great MISservice to the people of Arcata with its blatant hate-mongering and purposeful distortion of fact to misrepresent targeted residents of Arcata.

Then you don't use served OR disserved (I have changed the entry to use neither). Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, an encyclopedia, if you will, not a soapbox. Also, I've never heard of the Plazoid. Is it well-known enough to deserve mention? -Reisen

Upon second look, given the fact that you not only ext-linked the Plazoid, but that you spelled out the URL in the article, makes me think that perhaps you own the Plazoid and you are trying to hype it. That is not what Wikipedia is for, and it would certainly explain why in 18 years of Arcata life I've never heard of the Plazoid. The Plazoid is not a major part, or even noticable part, of Arcata life, and its mention shall be removed. It would, however, work fine to mention the Plazoid on a dedicated Arcata Eye page.

I appreciate the edits you have made to the main page (I myself am new to this and don't really know how to do things the "proper" way), however, I do have qualms. You obviously are allowing the Arcata Eye FREE ADVERTISING at this website, which, as you pointed out, is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia, especially given the questionable nature of the content of the Eye. As for the Plazoid (publication, name derived from slanderous term used in the Arcata Eye to disparage unhoused people and encourage violent acts against them), I am surprised that you have not heard of it or read an issue. It is almost always available at the Arcata Co-op, Solutions, and other places. It is only up to about issue number 8 (monthly), but the blogspot has had plenty of comments on it from Arcatans (one post had 42 posts!). Have you heard of the Humboldt Advocate? also a relatively new publication in Arcata. Why does the Arcata Eye deserve FREE ADVERTISING while any mention of these other publications are edited from this website?

• The Arcata Eye deserves mention because it is a major Arcata publication. If I were writing a Eureka article, the Times Standard, the Lumberjack (blegh), (and the Tri-City Weekly, blegh blegh) would all deserve mention because they are well-known and generally worth mentioning along with any detailed explanation of the city. It's not advertising, it's worthwhile information. Now, if I mentioned the Eye without mentioning a publication of equal prevalence in the community, that would be incorrect. But the Eye and the Plazoid are really not comparable in popularity nor in knowledge of their existence. The Plazoid, it seems, exists mainly as a reaction to the Eye. Thus, it would be a perfect inclusion on an Eye-only page, but makes no sense on the Arcata one. -Reisen

I disagree. On Monday nights, the night before the new issue of the Arcat Eye comes out, look at the Eye vendboxes: THEY ARE FULL! Just because the Eye is well-funded and can afford to create volumous waste doesn't make it a "major publication." Look for a moment at the "letters to the editor" section. The Plazoid gets more comments at the blogspot than the Eye gets letters to the editor, and thus is MORE interactive with Arcatan than the Eye. ASK AROUND! I'll bet you find that alot of people have atleast heard of the Plazoid. Also check out the blogspot yourself (theplazoid.blogspot.com). There DEFINITELY is "WORTHWHILE INFORMATION" at the blogspot, complete with sources citations. Contrast that with the non-informative opinionated "stories" of the Arcata Eye. I don't think that the Arcat Eye reports "worthwhile information," or at least not at all ACCURATELY. But, yes, Hoover is well-funded (by advertisers, not interested paying customers!). So if you think that the amount of money behind the publication is more important than the content of the publication, then by all means, go ahead and mention the Arcata Eye. But don't edit out the Plazoid just because it isn't heavily funded.

• First of all, it's rather silly to compare the "Letters to the Editor" to your blog, or any blog. Not only are people more likely to respond to a blog (since it is both less effort and obviously encouraged) than a newspaper, but the Eye also surely does not print every letter/email it recieves. I mailed them once a while back and was not printed. A more worthwhile comparison would be between the Eye's "Letters to the Editor" page and your publication's "Letters to the Editor" page, assuming all responses came strictly from readers of the paper. The Arcata, California Wiki article doesn't care about a website edited from Arcata. Second of all, I was not saying that the Arcata Eye included lots of worthwhile information, nor was I implying that the Plazoid does not. I have never read the Plazoid and rarely read the Eye so such a claim would be unfounded. The "Worthwhile information" line of my reply was referring to whether the reading about the Plazoid on the Wikipedia "Arcata, California" article is worthwhile information. I apologize for any ambiguity. While the Plazoid may have its following, compared to the Eye it is an obscurity. If you want to showcase the Plazoid as a reaction to the Eye's slant (as it was written when I found the article), then do so in the proper place, an Arcata Eye article. However, mention of the Plazoid only belongs in this article if it is a major part of the community regardless of the Eye. I do not believe it is. While writing this response, though, I remembered a paper that is comparable to the Eye which is based in Arcata - the Northcoast Journal. I shall add it presently. Actually, the Journal is about four times the size of the Eye. You learn something new every day. (In case you're curious, Eye's circulation is ~5000) (And yes, circulation numbers are important.)-Reisen

Work in Arcata consists largely of dumpster-diving, the university (which is often despised by conservatives and especially those in the timber industry), and small businesses that are often housed in converted houses. Chain restaurants are near to absent as a city law prevents their numbers from growing.

Much of this section does not seem to be NPOV, with the exception of small businesses, which is noteworthy enough to stay. Also, the chain restaurants note is a repetition from earlier in the article, so it should probably not be put in a second time. That having been said, I'm not sure about editing this, because I can't think of a better way to word this paragraph. I'd be interested in ideas rather than just removing the whole paragraph. --Benfergy 00:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wow. I completely missed the chain law mention in the opener and added that sentence. Sorry about that. On that note, the nullification of the PATRIOT act is in both the opening paragraph and the "Recent History" section, though I'm not sure which place it belongs in. As for the paragraph, how about:

As of 2002, there were 8,210 employed persons living in Arcata [cite] and an unemployment rate of 7.2%. The majority of Arcata jobs come from the government, the city's many independently-owned businesses, Humboldt State University, and the "agriculture, forestry, and fishing" industries. Arcata is also home to a higher-than-average unhoused population. Many of these practice freeganism rather than holding a traditional job.

• Thoughts? -Reisen

That sounds quite good. --Benfergy 22:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

identical to eureka, calfornia history section

• Is anyone aware that the information contained in the Arcata, California History section was at one time word-for-word identical to the History section of the Eureka, California article, until the neutrality of the Eureka, California History section was disputed and slightly altered? Please veiw the Eureka, California discussion page for more info. --eurekamike

The Wikipedia user who seems to be promoting the Plazoid in this talk page is EXTREMELY biased. The Arcata Eye IS the paper of record for Arcata. The circulation numbers for the Eye are substantially greater than the Plazoid. Also circulation of the Eye within Arcata is probably greater than the North Coast Journal. A few things to consider: First, while it is true that the North Coast Journal has greater circulation than the Eye, there is a very good reason for this: the North Coast Journal is a journal about the ENTIRE North Coast from Mendicino County to the Oregon border, meaning that those circulation numbers are for that whole region. So while the Journal IS printed in Arcata its NOT ABOUT Arcata. The Eye is. A second thing to consider: why does the Eye sit in Vend boxes while the Plazoid gets snatched up? Easy, the circulation of the Plazoid is much lower, therfore papers are rarer, some people have heard of it and they pick up copies. The Arcata Eye certainly has full vend boxes on monday night, but this is not true everywhere. The Arcata Eye has vend boxes are ALL OVER Arcata, so they probably saturate the paper grabbing market and always have some left over. It is also possible that those boxes get re-filled throughout the week (I don't know if this happens but it should be considered). Despite these anecdotal arguments, there is one fact that the Plazoid advocate is missing: most of the Eye's sales and circulation are through direct mailings. Basically, all the regular families who live in the town get the Eye delivered to their mailbox every week and therefore have no need to buy a copy at a vend box. This is true of most mainstream local papers. This fact also leads to a third very important point: many families get the Eye because it has news that is relevant to them. The Eye covers local baseball, festivals, school activities, environmental issues and everything else that is important to local Arcatans. The Palzoid covers: Homeless people. There is nothing wrong with a targeted paper, but when we talk about the local newspaper of record then we should look toward the paper that actually covers all the issues relevant to all the local people and not a small subset. Fourth, this point has already been made but it's worth repeating, activity in the blogosphere cannot be compared to letter to the editor pages. The letters to the editor area in the Arcata Eye is one of the largest in ANY newspaper I have ever come across, and yet I and people I know have had letters rejected from printing. This means that the Eye's letters to the editor page has too many letters to print and is thriving. This is not a sign of a newspaper that dis- or mis-serves the the local populace. Fifth, there is good reason why Kevin L. Hoover is "well-funded," HIS NEWSPAPER IS POPULAR. My mom worked the Union when it went out of busines (for those of you who don't know: that's the newspaper that had been Arcata's paper for 100 years prior to the Eye's existence). Kevin Hoover was a journalist there at the time and, partly because he suddenly found himself out of a job, he decided to start his own newspaper. He ran the paper on a deficit for a period of time, but people bought it and subscribed to it and it quickly took the place the The Union had once filled and in fact surpassed the Union's sales. If you talk to the average Arcatan, and I mean the average Arcatan not the subset who hang out in coffee shops or on the plaza, they will probably not have heard of the Plazoid but they will certainly have heard and probably subscribe to the Arcata Eye. Sixth, I don't know who the Plazoid advocate is (though I have a guess), but I have lived in Arcata for 24 out of 28 years of my life. My parents have lived in Arcata for almost forty years. Small weeklies and monthlies such as the Plazoid have come and gone. It is possible that the Plazoid is here to stay. But since it JUST STARTED we have yet to see whether it will, in fact, last or impact the local community in any substantial way. Lastly, the homeless issue in its present incarnation is a very recent phenomenon (perhaps the last 5-8 years). A large number of "houseless" have moved into Arcata since the mid-nineties, placed pressure on the local community, and started shouting very loudly. Just because they and their supporters have newspapers of their own and are internet savy does not mean they represent the entire community within Arcata. The homeless issue in Arcata is very heated, and probably unresolvable, but the Plazoid advocates for only one, narrow, side of the issue. It is important to realize that this issue has MANY sides, and the Eye at least gives voice to a wider range of them. -Metatree, Oct 30th 2005

I believe that the changes to the section where neutrality has been question are sufficient to remove the dispute tag. To any who are paying attention: I will remove this tag within one week of this statement. ---Metatree 22:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I was premature in removing the NPOV tag. Since there appears to be a persistent effort by a contingent of individuals to POV attack this article. In particular in relation to the newspaper the Arcata Eye. --Metatree 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

I couldn't see any POV in the noted section. I cleaned up some of the wording, and removed the tag. Feel free to correct me if I erred. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

True, there is not usually POV, because I and others are constantly trying to remove it. I reinstated the tag in order to make people aware of the section.--Metatree 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arcata Eye / North Coast Journal

Hey, everybody: check out this load of crap!!!

jsndknskdnfkjsdkf;), yup definitely crap.--Metatree 20:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed recently that someone had spliced comments into mine with the use of brackets. I'm fairly certain this sort of splicing is improper wikipedia etiquette, but I feel the comments must be responded to so I have organized them into something closer to what wikipedian etiquette suggests. I have kept the anonymous commentator’s words in brackets to distinguish them from my own and indented them, double indents are my response to the comments. All comments are spliced into the orginal statement.

Orginal statement: There has been a concerted attempt, mostly by persons openly hostile the Arcata Eye, to portray the Eye as an insignificant newspaper in the town of Arcata.

[This is bullshit. The original wikipedia article was promoting the Arcata Eye as a really great newspaper, which is definitely subjective and in question.]

No, when I made this comment the disputed piece had to do with whether the Arcata Eye was the only paper to cover Arcata “solely and extensively.” This statement had NOTHING to do with the quality of the paper, but it has much to do with the paper’s cultural significance and scope. Please get your facts straight.

One of the more subtle ways to do this has been to promote the North Coast Journal in such a way that appears to be the more culturally significant of the two papers, and this is facillitated to some degree because the Journal has a larger circulation.

[This is also bullshit. The original challenge was that the Arcata Eye is openly bigoted against people percieved as homeless, and makes money by poking fun at other people's misery.]

Again, you are confusing far earlier versions of this discussion with the situation as it stood when I made my comments. Nevertheless, you and other anonymous editors have consistently asserted that the Eye is bigoted, but you have yet offer any proof of this claim. Calling a person or an institution “bigoted” is a very strong and emotionally charged statement, and it requires far higher burden of proof than a constantly repeated assertion.

However, this is a false way to view the situation. First, the North Coast Journal is a regional paper, covering the entire North Coast region, so it's higher circulation numbers come directly from that fact. Second, the Journal does not cover Arcata exclusively or extensively, only major stories coming from Arcata are actually presented in its pages. Thus, since the page is the Arcata, California page, the Journal is not as culturally important as the Eye. Third, the Journal can more reasonably be called a weekly magazine. Its style is generally thus, it has one major feature article, with a few smaller articles. These features are usually quite informative, so there is nothing wrong with this style of journalism. I'm only pointing this out because, it is evidence that the Journal does not extensively cover stories. The Arcata Eye on ther other hand covers everything from School plays to City council meetings to the Arcata sports and music scene. This is exactly what small town newspapers do across the entire country. This is of very high cultural value to the residents of Arcata. I would also like to point out that the population of Arcata is only 16,000 so a circulation of 5,000 newspapers is not insubstantial. The Journal on the other covers a much larger region including Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity and Mendicino counties. Humboldt County alone has a population of around 120,000. This means that the per capita circulation of the Journals targeted region is substantially lower than that of the Eye. I realize this can be confusing, and so edited the section accordingly, to point out the difference between the two papers. However, this improvment was reverted by an anonymous editor (66.42.17.122). This same editor recently put unsubstantiated statements into the Arcata Eye page such as, the Eye covers "little news and a lot of gossip and personal attacks," the paper has an "abusive style," and has "low ethical standards." This clearly indicates to me that this editor has a personal vendetta against the Eye. Further, there have been several other anonymous, and a few named, editors who have attempted to put lines such as, "scumbag Kevin L. Hoover" (the owner/editor of the Eye), as well as callin the paper racist and bigoted,

[if it's bigoted, well, then it's bigoted]

No, you obviously feel that it’s bigoted but you offer no proof at all for your rather extraordinary claim.

which, given it's somewhat left of center spin and general consideration of the entire Arcata community, is a laughable idea.

[Indeed, it is easier for some to laugh than others.]

I’m not at all sure what you mean by this.

This set of anonymous editors have made similar POV impications on this page as well, but have generally taken advantage of the subtle nuances between Arcata Eye and the North Coast Journal to make the Eye seem to be a less culturall important paper than it actually is. In fact, the drive of these editors to continue these attacks on the Eye shows just how important they think it is. --Metatree 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[Metatree probably made the less-intelligable insults him-herself. Interesting that all of the comments are lumped together as being stupid insults. Sometimes Metatree needs help to be more truthful.]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but I will try to respond. I have made specific comment below demonstrating exactly what I view as a personal insult against me, you can read those if you wish. As for truthfulness, I have been very truthful and I have explained my edits and reasoning very clearly. If you have a dispute over the factual or analytical aspects of my comments/edits then by all means voice those, but stop trying to force your point of view onto this page by attacking my credibility.

I have given very particular reasons for my edits concerning the North Coast Journal and the Arcata Eye (see above). Please do not revert these edits without discussion.--Metatree 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW the Arcata Eye contains an average of over 20 articles a week on Arcata whereas the North Coast Journal produces a little over ten on the region (albeit one of those articles is a very in-depth piece). Just another figure to support a more prominant position for the Arcata Eye in the culture section.--Metatree 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Metatree really is in love with Kevin Hoover, he must enjoy watching cops beat up homeless people too.

Here we are you stoop to insults, and I to logical arguments. You make my point for me. Thank you.--Metatree 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Learn to spell and I'll learn to take you seriously. Your unceasing support for Kevin Hoover makes it clear who you work for. Funny, the Eye is full of spelling mistakes too. Birds of a feather and all that.

I would refer you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, please read it carefully. Anonymous IP addresses are also subject to the policy.--Metatree 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your stats on the Eye no longer hold up I'm afraid. They are shrinking.

Please find and publish the new figures then.--Metatree 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have thoroughly explained my reasoning in prior discussions about the issue of the North Coast Journal and the Eye, but I left the current edits standing as they are succint and follow Wikipedian policy. My removal of the Plazoid from the Arcata page was justified by a previous editor: "The Arcata Eye deserves mention because it is a major Arcata publication. If I were writing a Eureka article, the Times Standard, the Lumberjack (blegh), (and the Tri-City Weekly, blegh blegh) would all deserve mention because they are well-known and generally worth mentioning along with any detailed explanation of the city. It's not advertising, it's worthwhile information. Now, if I mentioned the Eye without mentioning a publication of equal prevalence in the community, that would be incorrect. But the Eye and the Plazoid are really not comparable in popularity nor in knowledge of their existence. The Plazoid, it seems, exists mainly as a reaction to the Eye. Thus, it would be a perfect inclusion on an Eye-only page, but makes no sense on the Arcata one. -Reisen"--Metatree 05:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

wow, metatree, it seems you have a heckler, and it's not me! I have kept all of many comments truthful and non-personal. I do, however, believe that you are not neutral, and the wikipedia article suffers because of it. I found it interesting that you have labelled my challenges to your bias as "personal attacks." Anyhow, I don't know you, or have any personal problems with you, but I do believe in speaking (or in this case 'typing') the truth.

I believe I labeled these as personal attacks: "Wow, Metatree really is in love with Kevin Hoover, he must enjoy watching cops beat up homeless people too." "Learn to spell and I'll learn to take you seriously. Your unceasing support for Kevin Hoover makes it clear who you work for. Funny, the Eye is full of spelling mistakes too. Birds of a feather and all that." If you did not write these then I was not reffering to you (as you and other choose to remain anonymous I have no way of confirming who is who). If you did, and you do not see them as attacks then I seriously question your understanding of human expression. As for neutrality, I think you should really think about what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. This means first, that the information should be well substantiated. Many of the additions made by anonymous users have been a) completely unsubstantiated and b) very much biased toward to the view of a small 'zine called the plazoid. Few people in Arcata outside a certain circle even know what the plazoid is, thus the argument above that it is not, at the moment, an important cultural event. I also find it interesting to note that several other pages are frequently edited by some of these anonymous editors, namely the Green Party and David Cobb. Editors on both of these pages have continually removed claims that have been shown to be completely untrue. This casts doubt on the truthfullness of some of these editors work on the Arcata page. Lastly, I would welcome reasonable discourse on these topics, because there is likely information that would be worthwhile to put on this page. Thus far the only thing I have seen from these anonymous editors is a concerted effort to defame the Arcata Eye through repeated unsubstantiated assertions, I repeat: unsubstantiated assertions, and promote the plazoid. This leads me to believe that the anonymous editors are strong supporters of the plazoid, in which case I see very little nuetrality coming from them. --Metatree 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

An additional comment: You say that I am not neutral and that you seek truth. If you truly seek to make this page better then you should actively engage in the discourse on this talk page. As a human being I can't be totally neutral. However, I do value and try to perpetuate accuracy and truth. This is why I always use the talk page to explain why I make the edits that I do. The logic that I use is plain to see for anyone who wishes to read it. If you do not agree with my logic then feel free to write a counter-response. But please do not criticise me or my nuetrality without taking the time to read and respond to what I have to say. When I look over this talk page this is what I see: a lot of writing from me that explains exactly what evidence, information and arguments that I am using to make my edits. Next to that are a set of comments from an anonymous user who has not even attempted to engage in dialogue, but has rather decided to attack me. If you have probelms with my arguments please specify where you have those problems, then an actual discussion can start. To make edits, especially edits that contain unsubstantiated assertions, without having the minimal decency to explain your logic is rude and unhelpful.--Metatree 05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cultural importance of the Plazoid

I take it as a given that a certain set of anonymous editors will object to my edits and explanations, but I will continue to explain my edits so that the wider Wikipedian community understands. I have stated on numerous occaisions that the Arcata Eye is the town newspaper for Arcata. That is it covers Arcata extensively, from issues such as local city politics to school plays to the music scene to festivals. This is an important service to the people of the town despite what some people think of the opinions that are expressed in the paper. Several anonymous editors continue to make the attempt to equate the Plazoid, a small print run 'zine and blog, to the Arcata Eye. The latest was to point out that the Plazoid focuses on Arcata and put it in a line immediately after the Arcata Eye line. It is true that the Plazoid focuses on Arcata issues, but I have yet to see the Plazoid focus on topics outside the realm of homelessness, police, and activism. All good things to write about to be sure, but a far cry from the sheer amount of small town NON-POLITICAL topics that the Eye deals with. I would also like to point out that there are several 'zines and blogs that are published out of Arcata and if the Palzoid deserves mention then so do some others. Lastly, I reinstated the "higher than average" line from a previous edit in relation to unhoused people. The reason is simple: Arcata DOES have a higher than average number of "unhoused." The Arcata Task Force on Homelessness (how many other cities the size of Arcata have advisory bodies on homelessness?) issued a document with the figures to prove this.--Metatree 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of Life

Having been born in Eureka some years ago and having lived in the area for some while, I was surprised to find this article. Generally it seems pretty good. But I saw a study someplace a while ago that listed Arcata has being one of the ten best about "quality of life" (a measurement that included crime and a number of other factors) in all of the continental USA. I'm surprised it is not mentioned. Another issue, raised earlier on this discussion page, "dumpster-diving" can have several meanings. A street person might eat and sleep by "dumpster-diving" while hard working recyle people might earn their living by "dumpster-diving". It might be helpful to spell out which use of the word everyone is talking about. Hey, their might be other meanings of the term, too. Emotionally laden terms of that nature often invoke strong emotional reaction without actually spelling the issue out. Terryeo 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added External Link

Heya. Dropped in to read the Arcata article - which of a few minutes ago was quite well written and fair, IMHO. Anyway, I saw that The Placebo was mentioned in the text, so I went ahead and added an external link to The Placebo website (http://theplacebo.net), which I currently maintain for the group. Hope that meets with people's approval. _dao 4 April 2006 (not registered with Wikipedia)

It appears Academic Challenger did have a problem with me adding that link. I'm trying to find out why, now. _dao (now registered!) the placebo 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it was all a misunderstanding and the link is back in. the placebo 09:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, a couple of weeks after my last write-in, the link to The Placebo aka Humboldt County Youth Arts Program was mistaken for spam again. I've just added it back again since I still think that if someone chooses to mention it in the article, an external link is not out of place. It should be noted, however, that though The Placebo still hosts shows in Arcata, our main space is now in Eureka. the placebo 06:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I changed the the "massacares" back to "acts of violence." While "acts of violence" does not quite convey the degree of some of that violence (which did include one well-documented massacre), it at least is truthful. Using "massacres" in the plural is at best misleading, and at worst false. Further, this is a page on Arcata history and while the Wiyot certainly should be mentioned the amount of detail neccessary is not much, since I believe Wiyot history and the violent acts are quite well described in the Wiyot page. I would also note that other than this description of Wiyot destruction (which is more properly regional history) there isn't any Arcata history in this history section at all. That should be remedied.--Metatree 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read in the article that some of the Arcata residents want to take down the statue of William McKinley. Could someone tell me why that's an issue? What do they have against him? FrankNiddy 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They think him a war-monger. Levi P. 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Picture

While I was reticent to remove the picture of the theater without anything to put in it's place, it seemed no picture at all would be better than a close-up shot of an unoccupied, dilapidated building. With absolutely no context, I would think this could be a bit confusing for our prospective readers. Levi P. 04:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable People

anon edit asked to add the following "the founder of patagonia?" I have moved the question and posted here because the entry is a question, not a person. Does anyone know who this is?--al95521 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment box

Testing new comment box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al95521 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] SoSa

1. I have lived in the general area for 25+ years and have never heard of SoSa. I have never heard of South Samoa. 2. The community of Samoa is neither near nor adjacent to Arcata. Samoa is more than 9 miles from Arcata. 3. Zero Google hits for SoSa.

[edit] Notes removed from code on main page

NOTE: The census does not count students the way people might think. Dependent students, especially are often NOT counted while away at school. This means the population of Arcata may actually swell by at least several thousand during regular terms. Arcata may actually exceed 20,000 persons in late August or September, especially before students start dropping.

--al95521 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Minor theater claim.

The statement that the Minor theater is the oldest continuously operated theater is not true. My grandfather operated the Alto Freight and Express shipping company out of an unused Minor Theater for a period of time in the 1940s. The claim that it has been continuously operated cannot be substantiated because it is not true. It was a marketing ploy by the Minor Theater company. Odd that they made the claim some years back...had my family laughing. IF an editor wants to claim something that is a marketing ploy/propaganda then feel free. But please site one of the so-called sources you refer to. It might be best to consider a real publication (scholarly work) other than local chamber of commerce types of publications...and certainly not one of the Minor theater pamphlets. Again thanks, but please provide a reference to a text when you put this back as I am sure you will. Norcalal 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Aside from a few temporary closures, the Minor continued to operate continuously until 1960. It reopened in 1972 after major renovation by the Minor Theater Corp." ...This from an interview and article with the actual company printed in November 2000 in the highly respected Northcoast Journal http://www.northcoastjournal.com/012700/cover0127.html

As anyone can see the theater, having been closed and reopened in 1972, cannot possibly have the claim of the "longest continuously operted theater" that was placed here in the article. Again this is all about accuracy...right? Norcalal 12:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)