Talk:New River, Arizona

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


Untitled[edit]

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

Neutrality problems[edit]

The "History" section of this article seems to have been written by someone with an agenda of opposing new development and the expansion of Phoenix and its planned suburbs. Several sentences are written with passive-agressive statements about "the future of the rural character" of New River and so on.

Wikipedia is not the place for this. Darkest tree (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in New River, Arizona[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New River, Arizona's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gnis":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019: Request Page Protection[edit]

Some IPs (could be the same editor) is attempting to delete the section on incorporation (which is referenced) and is replacing with unreferenced information. Attempts to get them to discuss on the Talk Page has failed. Clearly, this is a controversial issue in the town. I have requested page protection to prevent disruptive editing and force proper discussion on this section. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got concerns about the WP:EDITWAR, conflict of interest editing and its too hard for me to check through or sort out (certainly at the moment). I urge discussion and I also urge care about use of peoples names on the article. Things needs to be sourced but also be aware of WP:LINKROT and ensure relevant web page references have archives of the state at which they are referenced. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing[edit]

(the text below was copied from my talk page as this is the best forum for continuing the dicussion}. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britishfinance, I am responding to reversions to the "New River, Arizona" wiki page. A group of neighbors have asked me to perform revisions, which will also include updates to facts, historical information, etc. and gathering necessary information requires my neighbor's inputs. For a brief amount of time, we expect the page to be incomplete until this information is updated and added.

As the recent "incorporation effort" was just shut down by the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona yesterday, my neighbors wanted, actually demanded, an immediate revision to the New River page to remove any information about the recent incorporation effort. I am dismayed to see that you, whom does not seem to have any stake in our small community, continue to revise the page for our community.

The statement that you will have the page locked is concerning as I do not see how you would have authority or ownership over our community, and we wish to retain authorship and editorial rights over information concerning our community. I respectfully ask that you divest yourself as an editor of our wiki. If you were granted authority by someone to do so, I would appreciate the contact name(s) of the person(s) that gave you this authority.

Please validate your authority to revise anything we, the residents of New River, choose to post about our home. As of this moment, I do not expect any further revisions from you regarding New River, Arizona. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowayjoseaz (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowayjoseaz ... in my opinion this is not the way to go about addressing your concerns, especially as you may seem to have a WP:COI. I perhaps suggest raising at WP:TEAHOUSE to get neutral advice and entering discussions on the article talk page. ThankyouDjm-leighpark (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to @Nowayjoseaz:, @Azlv:, @38.29.235.56: and @71.223.65.252: (which I think are all the same editor).
Hi, it is clear that you are not familiar with how Wikipedia (WP) works – which is completely fine.
On WP, nobody "owns" an article (see WP:OWN); not me, not you, and not the townspeople of New River. Stating that you are "acting on behalf of neighbors" carries no weight in WP – whether it is true or not. WP is completely anonymous. Note that using multiple accounts, called "sockpuppetry" on WP, is prohibited (per WP:SOCK).
Anybody can edit this article, as long as they follow WP policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:PAG), which require all content in an article comes from reliable independent secondary sources (e.g. WP:RS), and is "referenced" as such in the article. Without such reference, content can be removed. The content you are adding has no references.
WP is a community built on "consensus". When deleting material amounts of referenced content (as you are doing), you need to explain on the Talk Page, why such an action is justified. Content that is out-of-date or not relevant gets deleted every minute on WP. However, in all cases, it is subject to the consensus of the WP community, and that is achieved on the Talk Page.
Note that this page has been temporarily "locked" to stop such disruptive editing (per WP:DE), in order to force a Talk Page discussion.
I can see from a google search, the issue of "incorporation" is a contentious one [1] [2] [3], and there seems (?) to be some kind of election or campaign going. If you are unable to create a "reference", just paste the link from a good source (e.g. local newspaper, but no blogs) on this Talk Page E.g. [4], and I will fix for you.
I am going to revert the article back to the point before you started deleting material (I think Djm-leighpark this is the best way). I will leave it to you to explain in whatever words you want on this Talk Page, why the material should be deleted, and what should replace it (with references). Hope this makes sense and you see that we are acting fairly.
Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance I've not looked at the full implications of the revert but can I suggest you: (1) Avoid using peoples names in the content unless WP:RS (2) Re-apply the reference update I applied to the article (3) Re-add the sentence I marked as "Citation needed" relating to letter that have been claimed to be sent ... I WP:AGF it happened ... alternatively use Template:update (section level and with section parameter) with a comment noting the claimed letter and requiring a source. (I'm possibly engaged and offline for a while). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark:. Thanks for that. I agree and will incorporate your comments above into the article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance I with immediate effect removed a sentence containing names that I did not find backed by the current version of the source and no archive existed and the citation was possibly misleading and the source may not have met WP:RS. I also note I have some concerns the section may have WP:UNDUE weight in the context of the article and might do with considerable reduction in size and summarization ... but that is only a first glance and I might not necessarily take a second or detailed one. If there is a lot to be said on the matter a sub-page might be an option but there will probably be a later attempt to WP:MERGE it back in. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark I think you are right on this. I had further made a larger re-write of this section as you were editing to remove all non-essential names, reduce tangential information, and include better references. It seems that this is a live issue that is being campaigned for now; they are trying to collect 10% of the signatures needed to force a ballot in November on the issue. I have therefore taken out any other sentences that look more like campaign material to advocate a position. The topic is definitely notable for the town, but hopefully, it is now a simpler and more encyclopedic chronicle of the main events around it. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just Moved sections in line with WP:Settlement ... moving incorporation efforts under government and moving the government section lower per American practice. A rule of thumb is if in doubt (try to follow the current version of) WP:Settlement. I think this improves the WP:PROPORTION of the incorporation efforts within the context of the article especially longer term. Although earlier I was concerned about re-entering about the claimed letter or using an update template I'm not at all sure it would be more harm than good with the current wording as wikipedia is not expected to be bang up to date with news. If the claimed letter has a reasonable source from which a claim or statement can be made then it is welcome.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of settlement[edit]

I noticed on passing an issue on the Website parameter of the infobox but I am at first glance far from convinced the associated website represents the settlement officially so I have left it broken but at some point it needs to be watched and sorted:

  • Can someone confirm an official website non-controversial website for the settlement. The infobox broken Website parameter claims nrdhca.org and I have qualms if this is full justified. (it might be)? Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation plan end[edit]

Discussed previously I observe North Phoenix News (waybacked url shown) would seem to be a middlingly reliable source at first glance if someone wishes to update the article. (I'm not). Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. nice one. Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epcor in government section[edit]

This article is on my watchlist ... and I was concerned about a recent IP edit regarding as far as I can make out Epcor in the Government section. I looked at this around 06:00 UTC and wondered if I should revert it or require a citation or otherwise template. I have chosen to mark the problem statements as citation needed as the minimum needed however a different solution may be appropriate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_River,_Arizona&oldid=1207182217"