Jump to content

Talk:Ontario, California

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CCCVCCCC (talk | contribs) at 10:30, 29 September 2016 (→Winterthur). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Medical Marijuana

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

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)[reply]

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...

Maybe I can save you the trip. I was the superivisor of the local history room at the Ontario City Library for 11 years. I haven't even managed to get past the opening paragraphs yet and already have these comments:

(1) It wasn't the "All-American" picnic, it was the "All States Picnic. Excuse me, but "anyone who was born and raised in Ontario" ought to be familiar with that."

(2) Apaches? Is this vandalism?

(3) The Christmas scenes were noted outside the city limits, especially after they became a big bone of contention when some activist wanted to raise a fuss about separation of church and state and how they were religious symbols sitting on city-owned land. I'm not saying which section the reference belongs in, but both the All STATES Picnic and those Christmas displays were genuine local traditions dating back several decades each.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is an almost funny side to this, as in "If I don't laugh, I will cry." Once upon a time my staff & I were asked to come up with the nicknames and mottoes of Ontario. By the way, Ontario was originally "The City that Charms." That went with Upland being "The City of Gracious Living." The "Gateway" thing is a recent product of some politico re-inventing the wheel--and to make it worse, Corona makes the same "Gateway" claim. Anyway, the reason this is relevant at this point is that after we did our checking in the archives and sent our stuff to City Hall, some bucket head decided that the City's official motto was "Gangs + Dope = No Hope." Some "expert" is always going to be with us.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

What and Why I Edited

As I stated earlier, I spent 11 years as the supervisor of what was then called the Model Colony Local History Room at the Ontario City Library. I also wrote a local history column for various LA Times subsidiaries for several years. I still have my notes handy, and will be adding some line citations shortly.

In the meantime:

The "Chaffey Fountain" was a pipe sticking out of the ground, with a ring of light-colored rocks arranged around it on the ground--nothing esthetic about it. I got a kick out of the notion that it was on a timer and that trains ran through every hour. It was turned on and off manually. Everybody up to and including the staff at the Los Angeles Public Library mistakes the "Frankish Fountain," which is at the Ontario Museum of History and Art now, for the earlier "Chaffey Fountain."

The mule CAR was not a mule CART. "Mule cart" implies something very small, probably of all-wood construction. The mule CAR was a trolley with steel wheels, etc., running on tracks. Some PR enthusiasts have from time to time depicted it as being drawn by horses, but it was drawn by mules--plural. The replica in the Euclid median was reconstructed with some original parts, but is mostly new work. By the time it was built, what remained of the originals was in pretty bad shape. It was the conductor of the original car, by the way, who used to announce upon arrival at the southern end of the line, "Ontario, California, the City that Charms!"

I went ahead and deleted the Apache reference. That reminds me of a gent who told me that Ontario had been part of the Aztec Empire because after all, the local Native Americans spoke a language that anthropologists put in the "Ute-Aztecan" family. QED. At that time, as a City employee, I had to be polite. Now I'm not. And I don't. But I'll try to be nice, like my grandmother taught me.

I acknowledge that the gang phenomenon and the issue of medical mj are important social and political issues that need to be discussed--somewhere. There is a lot more to Ontario, California than either of those issues, however, and I hate to see them "take over" the article.

I have a large personal investment in the content of this page, and I will try to improve it. At the same time, I have to say that I've stated my credentials, and I will continue to back up what I'm doing with more than adequate references. I don't want to end up shadow-boxing with Anonymous, and I don't want to get into a reversion contest. Here's hoping.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Chaffey/Charles Frankish, etc.

There were four Chaffey brothers, not two. All of them were present in Ontario and three of them, including Charles Chaffey, were involved with the founding of the original settlement. Charles Frankish was not, and did not come from Canada. Whoever gratuitously changed Charles Chaffey's name to Charles Frankish made an assumption, which is not a safe thing to do.

Juan Bautista de Anza died in 1788, and could not therefore have been a friend of Tiburcio Tapia who was born in 1789. Please do the math. Or not, because that's academic: Rancho Cucamonga did NOT include Ontario, California--check the boundaries in a Thomas Guide or go to the Ontario Library and ask to see the topographic maps.

If there were Hispanic settlers in the area for 200 years prior to the settlement of Ontario, how can the first wave have come in 1880? Either words have meanings or they do not.

I'd like to see a decent article about a place where I worked for eleven years. This isn't it.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Template

Okay Ontario is in the GLA area, but so are hundreds maybe thousands of other cities, ontario is not even mentioned in the template. If the city is in the template I would understand why you would have the GLA template here. Now as for its a hub for freeways and has an airport, that should be in the airport and freeway articles. Wiki has this probem that city articles are becoming flooded with templates. Now how would you guys feel if I added the thing to have all the templates under one sort of thing like the one in San Diego. But I would leave out the SB county template and the IE one as they are they most important. House1090 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks cleaner now, but in my opinion it would look even better putting the IE and SB Cty templates under the "Links to related articles" too, the same as the format in San Diego. I don't think they are so important that they need to be separated from the rest of the templates. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were more important. Ontario is in the IE metro, and the county, ontario is in both of the templates, both of which are important. If you still think the IE and SB Cnty should go in the Links to related articles then let me know and I will do it. House1090 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think including those two templates under the single "Links to related articles" would look best. That approach is also consistent with cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. House1090 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thank you. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airport

I changed “15th busiest cargo airport in the United States” to “15th busiest airport in the United States by cargo carried”. “Cargo airport” sounds like an airport that handles only cargo, where the article on said airport clearly says it handles both passengers and cargo. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ontario, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ontario, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Winterthur

Hello, you have removed sourced content from Ontario, California. Then you have reverted my edit restoring said content. Then you have proceeded to call me "an stubborn idiot", and claimed that "There are no sources verifying your undos". Even though the linked reference[5] lists "Winterthur, Switzerland" under the "Ontario Sister Cities:" heading, says "Ontario has formed affiliations with Winterthur, Switzerland" or "Ontario Sister Cities is a nonprofit organization created to foster an exchange of cultural, social and economic information between the City of Ontario and its designated Sister Cities: ... Winterthur, Switzerland". Please explain yourself. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your given link, or the given reference in the article, respectively, is not reachable ("access denied"), at least for me, so I cannot verify your statements. Besides: the source is not even an official organisation, but only a private one. Secondly, the official site by the government of Winterthur clearly and unmistakably states that they have four sister cities (de: Partnerstädte), and none of them is Ontario, CA. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is the official city website, the url is merely a mirror/redirect. And it clearly and unmistakably lists Winterthur.

I also find your explanation somewhat lacking. Could you please explain your initial removal of sourced content without an explanation? I don't feel "that's wrong" constitutes one, nor do reverts without an edit summary. Also could you please explain your comment that "there are no sources verifying your undos" even though there are? And finally, could you please explain your personal attacks on my talkpage? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ontario,_California&oldid=741738558"