Talk:Newport Beach California Temple

Sourced content on open house
Cited content from KSL-TV about 175,000 visitors during the month-long open house was removed here, added back here, and then removed again here. I am bringing this discussion to the talk page to determine why an NBC-affiliate is not considered a reliable source for this information. Bahooka (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * KSL is owned by the church. It is a well know fact but it is a fine network and I have nothing in any way negative to say about there network. It is a LDS own, and controlled/slanted reporting but that is no different then FOX Network and its bias. You do not see a great deal of Fox Network links in political related stuff here, unless other networks ALSO substantiate the reports. KSL as far as the LDS goes, has to be given the same requirement of a second source and you are still struggling to find one, and have utterly failed to explain why it is this building is special other then the fact that people that go there, think it is. Lastly a network that holds itself out as affiliated to a major network means it "pays a fee for affiliation". In the case of NBC, you even get to use the peacock, but that does not assure a unbiased report from that affiliate. Hope this helps you understand but I am done with this conversation. Once again good luck. talk→   WPPilot   03:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, KSL is owned by the LDS Church, but that doesn't automatically make anything and everything that is reported there slanted in some manner. To presume that the church controls and slants all the reporting makes no practical sense.  If an editor decides additional sources would be good or helpful, that ought to be requested, but without removal of what is a perfectly legitimate source, particularly for something that is really fairly non-controversial.  To then put in the edit summary that unsourced content was removed is just simply false.  It was sourced - because a user perhaps doesn't like the source or thinks more is needed - becomes incumbent on that user to identify why the source wasn't good.  Also, the idea that edit warring takes place when there is simply one reversion, particularly when it's removal of sourced content isn't accurate either.  So, I am going to add it back, again, until an editor acting in good faith can somehow substantiate that the source is flawed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor that removed it I am guessing removed it as it was 10 years ago. The topic here is notability and the lack of it. So far, we have it opened in 2005, and taking KSL as a fact, 10 years ago a lot of people visited, during the open house and that makes it notable enough to have a Wikipedia page all about the building, and if people that are reading about Newport Beach, to gain more information about Newport Beach that reader can come to the page about the temple, and gain more insight. That is verbatium what brought this conversation to this board. To a member of the community, (Newport Beach) that reads the page, what does he/she learn after reading about the building other then it is another building? It is only a special place to people that think it is a special place as someone told them that it is special, is that correct? talk→   WPPilot   03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No,actually I removed it because it set off my bullshit alarm. I find it hard to believe that attendance at an open house for any house of worship anywhere would rival that of a major league baseball team. Therefore,I want to see an independent source for that figure. A media outlet owned by the same denomination as the place we are talking about is not independent. John from Idegon (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As an example, 20 years ago 92,000 people visited the Orlando Florida Temple during only a 3-week open house according to this article in the Orlando Sentinel. Considering how long ago that was and that Southern California has many more people, 175K for the Newport Beach open house is very reasonable. Bahooka (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My bullshit alarm keeps going off. Going back to contributing high quality aerial photos of Manhattan New York, this is to much for me. talk→   WPPilot   06:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, regarding most of the references being from when the temple opened in 2005. Please note that, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". There is no statute of limitations on references and notability. Bahooka (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am done with this conversation, your obsessed with this topic and I have better things to do with my contributions here.. talk→   WPPilot   16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Located on the former site of a dump
An editor is adding in information stating that the building is located on the former site of a dump or across the street from the entrance to one. This use of reclaimed property would be an interesting part of the article. It simply needs a reference stating that the temple was built on the site of a former dump to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Looking at Google Maps, right now the building is situated across the street from another church, with a sports park on one side and more houses on the other. The references, including the map, given do not support the fact about a dump yet. If a reference mentioning the temple on Bonita Canyon was built on a dump is found, then please readd to the article. Bahooka (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC) How is the RfC template expired already (see here)? Bahooka (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The land fill is mentioned in a number of citations that I have already listed. http://oclandfills.com/landfill/closed/coyote has the information about the site, much of my personal insight is based upon personal experience, and that is not of any value to this topic, unless we use published citations. The map, that the prior page mentions shows that the north end of what is mapped out as the "toxic" area, ends at the north at the drive way for this building. http://wikimapia.org/21940732/Coyote-Canyon-Landfill has a detailed map showing the toxic areas. http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/coyote-canyon-landfill provides more background for your use here as well. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/closure/restoration/CaseStudies/CoyoteCanyon.htm is the official page from the State of California, and http://www.yourmapper.com/details/176/110043787774/coyote-canyon-sanitary-landfill.htm#location shows that the toxic levels of gases from that site are as follows: EPA GHG data - methane, Category: Very High: C02 & nitrous oxide gas levels are so high (the sewage is 200 to 300 feet thick) that it is sold off for a profit. The entire parking lot and land area that this structure was built upon was the entrance of the refuse plant, as you can see in the above drawings, the toxic zone is about 100 feet at the north tip from the buildings entrance. As a kid growing up here, we would be tasked, by the courts for minor violations (speeding on our mini bikes and the like) to "pick up trash, at the dump", I was one of those kids. :) talk→   WPPilot   16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No - Not one of the references state that the temple is build on the former site of a dump. This appears to be WP:OR and personal interpretation of primary sources. Bahooka (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * YES as per details listed above, these ref's show maps of the area. You can clearly see on the map that the area we are talking about, is/was the former landfill. This is not a derogatory issue nor a personal interpretation of primary sources. It does make it notable as user Bahooka had mentioned before, "Use of reclaimed land" is notable. If it was built on Sea Shells, like Liberty Island was, well was once upon a time (it was a Oyster dump) that should be mentioned. I agree that "This use of reclaimed property would be an interesting part of the article". talk→   WPPilot   01:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NO, and given the disagreement we've got an WP:OR issue The Wikimapia link shows this particularly well. If one goes to the north end of the area shown as the landfill, and takes Bonito Canyon Drive west from its intersection with SR 73, the first structure on the north side of the road is the temple. There is no evidence whatsoever that the temple was built on any part of the landfill or even adjacent to the landfill, not to mention that one cannot look at the map and know where the landfill's former entrance was. Given what the maps appear to show, a flat citation that the temple was built on the site of the former landfill is the only thing that will do. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per No original research/Noticeboard, I am removing the dump information as original research. If a published document is found stating specifically that the temple is built by a former dump, then it can be added. The current references make no mention of the temple. Bahooka (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Newport Beach California Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140715005212/http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/local/local_breaking_news/article_375840.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/local/local_breaking_news/article_375840.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)