Talk:Cisco, Utah

Suspect Claims
Cisco is the first ghost town with fiber optic link? I highly doubt that. Many a ghost town is located along high traffic corridors and have had fiber optic cables for decades, Soldier Summit, Utah, Delle, Utah and Knolls, Utah in Utah alone surely have fiber optic access just from their location. Unless this can be sourced this claim should be scrubbed.

Also how is it possible to claim of ownership of a town that has no defined limits? These claims need a source or be removed IMO. Googling these claims yields nothing. In fact, the claim of ownership appears contradicted. searching on the Utah-Colorado gas company's website implies the oil wells in cisco are being leased.

Davemeistermoab 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed, the unsourced info shouldn't stay if there is information possibly contradicting it, not unless a reliable source can be found to support it. The burden is on the editor who adds it to source it. It's in the history if it can be verified.IvoShandor 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Trueblood786 posted this on my talk page: call emery telecom and ask them about Cisco. Emery telecom just installed the pad for the fiber switch. Talk to Dave Emery and also ask him who owns the town of cisco trueblood 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC). Obviously, thats not really a reliable source, since I'm just as un-trustworthy as everybody else.  The questions that need to be resolved are these:  1) Did Emery install a fiber line to Cisco.  2) Do they intend  to provide actual high speed internet service to Cisco (high speed internet is more then just a fiber optics cable buried near by), 3) Is there proof of the auction of the land to the gentlemen in question, and finally 4) why is any of this notable?  Nobody lives in Cisco, so high speed internet isn't interesting.  Ownership isn't interesting on its face (its not really important who's name is on the deed of a decaying building) unless there is some sort of relationship to the mineral rights or something else pertaining to the area as a whole.  I think that at the very least its important to prove the ownership question, and determine why it is notable (if it is at all).  Then we can go from there. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you were trustworthy (which I have no reason to suspect you aren't) phone calls and interviews are original research. If this is notable, secondary sources shouldn't be to hard to find. But if it's not verifiable, obviously, we cannot add it. IvoShandor 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Government land auctions are, by law, advertised. If this claim is true, a search of Utah and Colorado area newspapers around the time the auction took place should have the public notice. I already tried the Salt Lake Tribune, Zip, Zero, Nada. I'd try the Times Independent (from Moab) but to search their archives requires a paid subscription and I'm cheap. =-) If somebody only wants the land for its oil/gas/coal etc. the more common thing to do is to lease the mineral rights from the owner. Few mining and drilling companies own the land they are extracting from.Davemeistermoab 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the auction claim has not been proven, I have removed it. I also removed the reference to the fiber optics line pending some verification of that matter.  The provided reference for the Gilbalter No 1 shows that it is not located within the town, but rather but 3 miles away in the Cisco Oil Field, so I removed that as well.    To the author adding this information - please discuss what you have on this talk page before adding back in these claims.  Thank you. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(intentionally reseting indent) The 74 page PDF from the state of Utah's website that was linked by User:Trueblood786 partially confirms, partially discredits the claims. The ownership of the town of Cisco is not discussed in this document directly, but it does yield clues. Here is a summary:

Most of the first pages are proposals and applications for a well lease from the State of Utah.

Page 16- includes an old map of cisco with lots, where the original driller of the well highlighted lots where they proposed leasing oil rights from the State of Utah. This document does show discrete lots for the town (i.e. no single owner) but is obviously not a current map.

Most of the next 50 pages are complaints by the State of Utah to the original operators for failure to pay taxes, royalties, file required reports and an environmental violation for leaking oil to soil without groundwater protection measures in place. All violations of the terms of the lease.

Page 64- is a record of a phone call made between a state government employee and an attorney for Mr Ahmad. It does mention the well was seized for the above violations and sold by the state at a tax sale. Only the well is mentioned, no land. Due to the complicated situation from the lack of records from the previous operator, ownership of the mineral rights is disputed with no resolution mentioned. However, in the next pages an agreement is signed to pay royalties to the State of Utah. Pages 66-68. Change of operator form for the well. In this form the owner of mineral rights is listed as State of Utah (it is specifically mentioned this is not federal or tribal land and no federal or tribal royalties are required).

The last pages are receipts from Mr. Ahmad to show he did pay back taxes, royalties, and hired a contractor to remove the contaminated soil.

So while this documents show Mr. Ahmad is to be commended for both responsibly operating the well as well as fixing a mess left from the previous operator. This document is not enough to prove he owns the town of Cisco, only the well. Davemeistermoab 05:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cisco Landing Store
IMO these paragraphs need to go, Unsourced and unencyclopedic. Anybody disagree?Davemeistermoab 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CGPGrey
WP:PRIMARY What we need here are significant high quality secondary references confirming this. 122.57.60.23 (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The quality of the source needed is in proportion to the level of dubiousness of the claim, and I don't think this claim is particularly dubious. Benjamin (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VIDEOREF sourcing a claim to a Youtube video is generally discouraged. Reading through the guidelines on that page, this video appears to pass the test as acceptable. I have no strong objection to this claim being included in the article, but it does seem to be a bit promotional for his Youtube video channel, more than encyclopedic content. So I'm not going to fight for this to be included either. However, if the video source does stay, it should have a timestamp included as part of the citation. As the video is 50 minutes long, someone just wanting to verify the claim about Cisco would potentially have to slog through 50 minutes of content to find it. Dave (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

VICE doc, etc
VICE recently uploaded a short 10 minute doc to YouTube about the sole inhabitant of this town, is this something worth including in the pop culture section? i would suggest mentioning the The Creatures, CGP Grey and VICE youtube videos in a bullet point saying something about how "several prominent YouTube creators have made videos in Cisco" or something, instead of having it split up between the external links and pop culture sections. Gabzony (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Esquire
There is an article in Esquire about the town: https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a44064846/blythe-roberson-america-the-beautiful-excerpt/?source=nl&date=061123&GID=47e3955d1162bc78015edb002c768e7238bd190316a94437a4c4b6c6191aa01b. Is it worth listing? Kdammers (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think so. I've had this article on my watchlist for some time, though I rarely edit it myself. I've seen a struggle with this article where people continually add a paragraph or two that some artists now live here. It's usually unsourced, or sourced to a youtube video or blog. This is essentially saying the same thing, but this source would be deemed more reliable by the wikipolicy enforcers. So if nothing else it would provide some finality to this back-and-forth.Dave (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)