Talk:Ontario, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Southern California
California Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject California.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Medical Marijuana

These edits are currently being discussed on Tcccfriends's talk page

[edit] Demographics

The total percentages used to add up to 100% but they were edited in February. Now it doesn't come close to 100%! --Grmagne 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I just went back two years in edit data and retrieved the correct demographic info. Some nut had included "Hispanic/Latino" as a race and just completely messed with the data. Should be all good now. --Jackbauer24 12:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditions

I tried contacting the user who removed the paragraph about the traditions. I can understand him or her not being familiar with the All-Ameican Picnic, as it may not still go on the way it used to. But anyone who is born and raised in Ontario should be familiar with the scenes from the life of Jesus that are placed on the median of Euclid Avenue yearly. I realize the burden of proof lays with me, but I won't be able to get to the OCL to do research for a little while...

Was that section bothering anyone else? And does anyone have any sources on the "famous people from or residing in" section?--Rockero 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reprint of an article about the scenes and the dispute: [1] ...still working on the picnic...--Rockero 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And here is an article about the picnic. [2] I guess it was Ripley's and not the Guinness Book. My bad!--Rockero 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people

Please do not delete or revert famous people again. The people who were in question and previously removed attended Ontario area high schools and there are credible external weblinks attached to each of their names as proof of their residence in Ontario. ---Merkurix 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law Enforcement/Crime

There is an anonymous user who keeps adding a law enforcement and crime section; they keep emphasising the OVS stuff in that section. There is a section toward the end of the "history" section that already discusses the gang stuff with enough useful detail (There are even wikilinks to the gang if more research is desired). I think it would be fine if someone had more data on the OPD itself; that could be useful, but the very fact that more emphasis is placed on the gang situation while just mentioning that the "OPD has put the situation under control" or no mention of any other crime data makes the article sound redundant when the gang stuff was already mentioned.--Merkurix 10:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The user, whose Wikipedia existence is dedicated entirely to the promotion of OVS and SoCal gangs, has been warned. A block won't help since he or she only edits every few weeks or so. We just need to keep an eye out and revert it as vandalism oupon sight. Good looking out, Merkurix.--Rockero 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HISTORY

Upland didn't split from Ontario in 1910 like the article says.....it was either 1906 or 1903....I can't remember exactly which year it was...but it was definately one of those two....that is why I didn't edit the article....is someone wants to do my research on it....IT IS ALL YOURS...because I'm not going to do it—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.92.244 (talk • contribs)

[edit] HISTORY

Nevermind.....It was easy...since Upland is in its' centennial year and it is 2006.....therefore the article is wrong....Upland split in 1906—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.92.244 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Demographics

I noticed that there were a few numbers that were a bit off with regard to the racial make-up of the city. I provided the data as shown from the U.S. Census page for the city of Ontario [3]. I made some changes to reflect the accuracy and the data should now be more clear. --Merkurix 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Bjorkman

He was a baseball player who played for the Astros for a couple of months in the 1983 season and then forgotten [4]. Even though he was born in Ontario, would he be considered notable enough to list? If you feel he should be added, then add him with my blessings. --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So...

Did they just name it Ontario, CA to provide the confusion between "Ontario, Canada" and "Ontario, California" ?

yes! ;) jer the linear 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Marijuana

Tcccfriends: Whether or not medical marijuana is a local political issue, it is irrelevant regardless. Local current events do not belong in an encyclopedia article unless they lead to some greater significance. As of yet, this ban's impact is too early to determine. Furthermore, it is uncited. Please stop vandalizing the page. jer the linear 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Inclusion of city blocks to medical marijuana dispensaries

The main dispute is whether whether to include in city articles if that city has either permanently or temporarily blocked medical marijuana dispensaries. Over the past few months, several cities in California have either permanently banned or placed a temporary moratorium on medical dispensaries being built within city limits. (Medical marijuana is legal to a certain extent in California; see California Proposition 215 (1996) and here). The cities include Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Claremont, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Yucaipa, among several others. Daily Bulletin newspaper sources: 3/23/2007, 6/19/2007, 6/27/2007.

The dispute is whether the city bans need to be included into each of these city articles. The statement that was removed was:

"The Ontario City Council has voted a permanent ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Medical Marijuana is legal in the state of California." (currently not in any city article)

Relevant discussion can be found on User talk:Tcccfriends (between the two main editors (User:Tcccfriends and User:Jerdobias). 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • The ban is not on marijuana itself, but simply the dispensing of medical marijuana through dispensaries. Medical marijuana may still be legal; it's just that the city has decided that it will not allow places where it will be officially distributed. I agree with Jerdobias in Tcccfriends' talk page that the ban is a minor local issue and does not belong on Wikipedia unless it leads to a greater significance. Wikipedia is not news either. --theSpectator talk 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries does not mean that patients cannot use Cannabis. But, it does mean that grievously ill people are forced to travel far distances to get Medical Cannabis. The fact that 5 or 6 City Council members, who are nothing more than part time politicians can ban a legal medicine from being dispensed is in the same realm of the Nazi party. A lot of people will flat out scoff at this. But remember, this is called the Compassionate Act. Compassion, putting yourselves in anthers position. If this was happening to you, would you rate it as important? If the 20 cities around you all enacted a ban on the medicine that was keeping you alive, would this make it important? If nothing else, these cities have enacted a ban on a law it's very own citizens have voted onto the books. In the wikipedia entry on George Bush, there is a large section solely devoted to criticisms of him. Is this allowed there only because it's of national significance? Does local significance ever qualify as significant enough? If more information needs to be added to make the information easier to understand it's importance, I don't have a problem with that. Tcccfriends 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comments

  • The statement in question appears to be the sum total of a "Local Politics" section. Somehow, I doubt that this issue is the sum total of local politics in Ontario, California. I also don't see any analysis of what this means, just a statement "X happened". It leads to reader to say "So what?". Unless there's some context, and an expanded section there, it should stay in limbo. --Haemo 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Haemo. Unless there is some notability to the cities banning or placing a freeze on the dispensing of Medical marijuana then it shouldn't be in the article. What is notable about it exactly? Can it be made into at least 1 paragraph where each article has separate content based on the actual history and laws of that specific ban or moratorium? Wikidudeman (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, 2 out of 5 of the Claremont City Council including the Mayor, and all but 1 of the Ontario City Council, including the Mayor, have endorsed a certain Congressman who received a large sum of money from the Pharmaceutical companies during his last election. Is it a coincidence that both Claremont and Upland are seeking a certain Congressman's help in getting Federal funding for city plans? Did they ban Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to stay on his good side, or did they do it for their own reasons? There is a quote from the Mayor of Claremont saying he supports Medical Marijuana, he knows it works, and that sick people should have access to it. Another Claremont City Council member said during a meeting that he had voted in favor of Prop. 215. Something is not right. If the Mayor supports Medical Marijuana, and a city council member voted for Prop. 215, why the ban???? Tcccfriends 09:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The argument is whether or not it should be mentioned in the article. If it's fairly notable in relation to the City itself then mention it. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mayor of Claremont at one point tried to enact a new law in Claremont saying it would be against the law for any business to open in Claremont that operated in any form that would go against Federal law. A lawyer that happened to be in the Gallery on an unrelated item, said that would not be a good idea as Local and States laws ran differently and contradictory to Federal law on a regular basis, and would be considered by Federal Law, illegal. He still voted for it. Tcccfriends 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not know in what capacity Wikidudeman falls in here, would you be considered a person of authority in a non-authorized place? Tcccfriends 09:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get all your information Tcccfriends, but much of it is speculation (e.g. "Is it coincidence...", "Did they ban Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to stay on his good side, or did they do it for their own reasons?"). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of speculation. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought and it is not a forum. I also don't know where you get all your information that you claim. This isn't a question of a wiki user's authority. As Wikidudeman stated, the argument is whether or not the city bans should be mentioned in the article. So far, I don't see any evidence of significant need to include it in the article. --theSpectator talk 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Where, did I get all my information. I got most of it from The Daily Bulletin, and from the Net. The fact that the Mayor says he supports Medical Marijuana, then attempts to get a new law on the books to keep it from happening in Claremont. I'll wait until we have a final word. And if it is decided to not let it remain, I will abide by it. But I will always believe part time politicians that inflict uneasy hardships for chronically ill people for their own political gains is true cruelty and noteworthy. Perhaps it should be classified as an current event since the information changes almost on a daily basis. Much in the same way as illegal immigrants in Hazleton, Pennsylvania is being treated. Tcccfriends 01:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I came from the "RFC". I have no more authority than anyone else. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, didn't know, was going for verification is all.Tcccfriends 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Tcccfriends, you stated when we started this process, whatever decision was made, that you "will abide by it." However, you have not gained a consensus, and it does not look like you will. Since Wikipedia is built on consensus, the decision thus far is to NOT include this information. However, you are still vandalizing pages with your edits. I'm sure we would all appreciate you sticking by your word, and abiding by the decision NOT to include this minor local political issue. jer the linear 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)