Talk:Puerto Vallarta/Archive 1

Link spamming
Links to commercial websites are not accepted and will be removed.--Atavico 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

''Are you saying that http://www.visitpuertovallarta.com/ is not a commercial website? They are selling more things than you can shake a stick at, condos hotels restaurants tours. Don't you think that you should re word your comment to say links that do not have to do with Puerto Vallarta will be removed?''

No, I am saying commercial sites. VisitPV is the official site. And they are not selling condos, restaurants, tours, check your facts before responding. Furthermore, though they list hotels on the site, Fidetur (Fideicomiso de Turismo de Puerto Vallarta) is a non-profit organization. --Atavico 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

http://visitpuertovallarta.com is a commercial site with a very small link with the Fideicomiso, are you saying that if I link my site http://vallartainfo.com to a non profit business, I become a non-commercial site? -- JRinPV —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRinPV (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Vallarta Hotels Map External Link
This link has been added a couple of times. The user's talk page has been tagged as a link spammer. I've deleted the link - a commercial reservation site.

History adds - references
I've been adding a lot of historical narrative to the page, drawing it from a couple of sources. I've listed the references, and will get around to actually adding notes for the more contentious points once I'm happy with the narrative. More or less though it's all based on either the Panorama book or the Mis Recuerdos book with a few odds and ends thrown in from various sources (UDG CUC Gaceta, PV Mirror, etc.) Tbyrnestl 06:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

I've added about 2/3 of the needed references. There are still some from the Mis Recuerdos book and periodicals I need to add. At least now it's obvious that the Munguia Fregoso book is the main source for the historical narrative.Tbyrnestl 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Streamlining the introduction and such
I've pulled most of the information out of the bloated introduction and moved it into appropriate sections. This is to conform with best practices. The only reason all that stuff was there to begin with was because before i started to build this into a real article, most of the content was in the introduction. It's fixed now, though I suppose it could be preened even more. There are more important bits to work on though.

I've also added a paragraph on gay tourism back in which someone deleted. It's with the rest of the tourist trends facts. Eventually this and the other random more or less common knowledge facts will be supported by references, but for now they are all just things anyone who spends time in Vallarta knows.

Finally, once I document my recent spate of additions better, I'll leave the article alone for awhile except for minor edits, and let others find it and hopefully add content.Tbyrnestl 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Water pollution
I'm disputing two paragraphs on pollution, for general inaccuracies. The newspaper references are not reliable, SEMARMAT is the governmental organisation responsible for water pollution testing and you can see the results of their testing at http://app1.semarnat.gob.mx/playas/playas_03/tablas/vallarta1.shtml#inicio As you can see, Los Muertos Beach had only one day in excess on standards in September, our rainiest month. I doubt if the beaches off Los Angles can say the same, but you won't find articles on water pollution on that Wikipedia page, although they routinely close various beaches every year. We also do not have any health problems in town, related to swimming in the ocean. At times there will be a brown frothy area close to sore that is often mistaken as pollution by uninformed people. It is actually a sign of a healthy marine environment and is caused by an up-welling current which brings silt and the refuse of crustaceans, to the surface. I feel the two paragraphs are mean spirited. JRinPV (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC) --- I'm originally from Los Angeles, California but have been a PV resident since 1998, and think the comments in the original article regarding water quality ought to be modified, not just have a banner indicating that the information is disputed, referring us to this blog. It is a serious matter and I'm not saying that the safety of the ocean water here is consistently good or bad, the truth is that it varies a lot and therefore instead of citing only articles which bolster the author's point of view, there should be a comment that the water quality varies a lot and provide a link to a site that provides current, contextual and independent information. This situation is not unique to PV - in February 2008 a report was published about contamination in 16 regions in Mexico. Read it at http://vallartaopina.net/index.php?mod=sec&cat=dia&ele=1

On August 15, 2008 I read in the Milenio Vallarta Opina and Tribuna newspapers that the only beach that had exceeded the coliform bacteria count this month was Boca de Tomatlan, and the readings were very high - 1799 enterococcos per 100 ml of water, when the permissible amount (!) is 500 enterococcos per 100 ml. The article states that the municipal government is trying to solve the problem but hasn't been able to control it basically because the people upriver and at Boca won't cooperate, the continue to unlawfully dispose of waste along the riverbanks and into the river which of course empties into the bay, and the problem is excerbated during the rainy season when the water levels rise in the river and scour the banks. The head of the Ecological department says they are working on eradicating the clandestine dumping of waste water. Here's the original text of the article in Spanish:

"PERSISTE SOLUCIÓN EN BOCA DE TOMATLÁN… *Autoridades de Jalisco, y en especial del municipio de Puerto Vallarta, no han podido controlar la contaminación que se presenta en Boca de Tomatlán. *El jefe de Salud Ambiental de la Secretaría, Rubén Ávila moreno, justificó los registros porque considera que esta playa es afectada por los arrastres del río que ahí desemboca.

JUSTIFICAN CONTAMINACIÓN POR ARRASTRE DE RÍOS… Las autoridades de Jalisco, y en especial del municipio de Puerto Vallarta, no han podido controlar la contaminación que se presentan en Boca de Tomatlán, ya que el último reporte señala parámetros inadecuados para la salud en esta playa. Por su parte, el jefe de Salud ambiental de la secretaría, Rubén Ávila Moreno, justificó los registros porque considera que esta playa de Puerto Vallarta es afectada por los arrastres del río que ahí desemboca. La muestra tomada el pasado 8 de agosto por la Secretaría de Salud Jalisco en Boca de Tomatlán presentó mil 799 enterococos por cada 100 mililitros de agua, cuando la Secretaría de Salud señala que lo máximo permisible de estos restos de materia fecal deben ser 500 enterococos. Vierten desechos a la playa… Pese a que se ha tenido pláticas con los vecinos de Boca de Tomatlán para concientizarlos sobre la problemática que representa la contaminación de las playas, aún persisten, señaló Salvador Gómez graciano, jefe de Ecología, quien agregó: “Estamos trabajando en la erradicación de los vertimientos clandestinos de aguas residuales”. (UA) 1 PL. PÁG. 3" Regarding the comments in the article about the poverty in PV, I agree there is a large difference between the constructions and standards of living in luxury properties and the poorer colonias here. I have lived and worked in all types of neighborhoods here in PV, and can comment that what many Americans would see as poverty based on the infrastructure and style with which they are accustomed to living, is not necessarily poverty here per se.

Many locals who live in what Americans would call substandard conditions are working hard to get ahead, and little by little improve their situation and don't consider their conditions to be so bleak. They take pride in their abode whatever it may be and have hope for their future.

While there are an abundance of low paying jobs in this region, there is also a burgeoning middle class made up primarily of merchants, service business owners and professionals. There are also very wealthy Mexican residents, expats and retirees who live here year round and "snowbirds" who live here part time during the high tourism season which corresponds with the most comfortable weather. All of these contribute to the very healthy economy of PV, which although affected by seasonal factors provides a fair living for nearly all. I've seen beggars on the street here during high season earn more on a daily basis (thanks to well-meaning tourists) than professionals with a four year degree or more, like myself.

While that doesn't mean poverty doesn't exist, in Vallarta it is more directly related to sociological factors and problems of drug and alcohol abuse (which can be found anywhere in the world) than to lack of opportunity. It is most definitely not caused (as the article contends) by the influx of people from other areas of the country - they come here to take advantage of the excess of jobs available in hotels, construction, etc in the Vallarta region. Help wanted signs and ads are all over the place here. Anyone interested in the employment situation can verify this by visiting www.manoamano.com.mx, a local publication with classified ads for employment, real estate, services, etc. which has an online version as well as a fat print version published every Friday.

For those who spout off about PV not measuring up to US standards, please realize your arrogance is offensive. What are you expecting? PV is not the US and by US standards most of the world is substandard. Yes, PV is full of potholes and other problems, but it is still a charming place where life is freer, safer, friendlier, more relaxing and healthier in general than in the US. Please stop trying to make PV conform to your idea of what it should be using the US as your ideal. I agree many things could be improved, but with respect for the sovereignty of this country and respect and appreciation for its people and culture. The author of this article exemplifies the stereotypical condescending, arrogant "ugly American" that gives us such a bad reputation abroad.

While I commend the contributors to the article on Puerto Vallarta for the wealth of information and photos given, it more than occasionally strays from the purely informational into sensationalism that betrays a personal, crusading agenda and uses the Wikipedia article as their personal podium. Perhaps the author's real agenda is to bring enough pressure that the government would pay attention to them and resolve the problems to their satisfaction?Vallarta Alegre20 Aug 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alegre vallarta (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting of independent and noncommercial site www---puertovallarta---de
Today my page was deleted twice by two professional wiki.. members. The first deleting was done by "Nposs" and the second by "Momusufan" You find about this in the history of the article. Both ''wanted my site to be talken off, otherwise it would be dealed with as Spam, including blocking, blacklist and so on. "Nposs" was friendly and explained to me the reasons and a part of his I believe personal opinion, "Momusfan" just had a few unpersonal lines for me. "Nposs" told me that at least my page is conflict of interest, because I my self linked to it. Also he told me about "linking to directory websites". To get it back he told me, to bring it up to the articles talk page, to see what other editors think about.

This I am doing herewith. I am building up a noncommercial, independent and private site, which features independent information on Puerto Vallarta related matters. This I do, because most information on Puerto Vallarta is either wrong or incomplete or related to some kind of business. As my english isnt the best I dont want to change the actual article about Puerto Vallarta, but there is still missing a lot. During the discussion I mentioned several times that the http://www.vallartabotanicalgardensac.org Botanical Gardens(In English) and the http://www.visitpuertovallarta.com Puerto Vallarta's City Run Tourist Site (In English) are both commercial sites. I have no problem with this sites, but why is my site deleted and these sites not ?? - I am close to believe that here information is filtered in a not serious way. I dont know how it works, but the result is, that my independent information collecting site is off, and the gardens sites, calling its self a "non profit" organisation and the visitpuertovallarta site, calling it self an "offical " site are on. Both sites are massively involved in commercial matters. The gardens site ( I respect it a lot ) does not mention any other botanical gardens and initiatives, the visitpuertovallarta site just features a selection of tourismservices and a booking portal. Both sites are SELLING something.

My site has some advertising, which I could take off if necessary, in all other aspects my site is independent, non profit, private and dedicated to collect neutral information regarding Puerto Vallarta. That what wiki is made for I believed.

I ask everyone to have a look to my site www---puertovallarta---de ( --- stands for a dot ). Please be so kind and discuss it, and if someone believes it could be a good option to have it on wiki, please add it. I am not allowed to do so. Also if someone want s to enter the site building team, You are welcome.

I am open to any kind of critic, the onliest thing what makes things better. But I do not like at all CLEANING INFORMATION METHODS, which are just against several ones, groups, or minorities, You know, rules need to be for everybody or for nobody.

Thank You for any kind of comment

Claudio G.

I didn't have anything to do with the deletion, but I will comment that the visitvallarta site is maintained by the government organization responsible for developping the city's infrastructure. While it has a few commercial links it's not peppered with drop in revenue generating google adds or other included banner adds. As for the Botannical Gardens, it's a business but it's also a prominent PVR attraction.

I suspect the reasons your link is being deleted are: 1) posted by an anonymous user (ip record only) 2) the .de domain - odd for a PVR site, and 3) the large percentage of the opening page covered with included Google adds. Tbyrnestl 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Thank You for Your reply Tbyrnestl, and thank You to build up the Puerto Vallarta Site from the ground again. It is much better now. But the reasons are not valuable. My IP Adress makes me more known then any registered user. Whois tells You who I am, where I live and so on. The .de domain is the second most used in the world. More then net, org, biz, info... It is the german TLD where my about 30 sites are hosted with 1and1, one of the strictest providers. And as I told before, I can take off the adsense, no problem. But the visitvallarta site is a booking portal, using expedia. The Botannical Gardens, I like them and the site also, is selling something. If wikpedia is open to them, You will have to tollerate about 100 other sites with mayor attractions. But not my one.

No, the reason is, that several wiki cleaners ( CVU, sounds to me like CIA ), uses robots like the spammers, to find out where someone edits a few times something and then they clean it up. Finally a minor problem, but neccessary would be a case study and a communication to the one they are attacking.

I will not longer participate with wikipedia, as they told me I will be blacklisted, blocked and so on. As You are interested in Puerto Vallarta I invite You to have a look from time to time to my site, may be You find something interesting for Your article. Actually I am investigating the earthpyramides close to Ixtapa. Also there is a legend regarding the name Banderas Bay. This tells that one of the spaniards flags when the war between them and the local indian population began, became lightening. That for the bay was called bay of flags.

Last thing, if the visitvallarta or botanical gardens sites are so P.V. friendly, why didn´t they work up the page once. Both speak perfect english, not like me. And visitvallarta is not a governments site. Just compare their tourism information to the one of the governments site. And, where is linking the government to them ? They just receive some money by the government, like hundreds of other institutions also. But I will find it out exactly talking to the government here.

Thanks again, and good luck with Your very well work. I just added yesterday the postal code.

C.G.

C.G: I'll check out your site and maybe I can find a reason to add your site as a reference rather than an external link. We'll see. Even the little bit of browsing I just did turned up some finds - an Iyengar yoga center which I didn't know existed, and the planned historical museum near Ixtapa. So maybe there's enough information on your site to include something from it and then make it a reference, which would immunize it form the external link criterion. I'm especially interested in the Ameca valley archeology, although given the history of similar finds near Guadalajara I doubt the mexican government is truly interested in developping a museum and archeological site worth the visit. It's sad really. Most visitors to Puerto Vallarta will never see Teotihuacán. For these visitors even the meager finds near Ixtapa woud be impressively old and significant. Mexico, however, suffers from an excessive weatlh of history. It's hard for the federal government to understand why there is any point investing money in s site like the one near Ixtapa, when the country already has so many sites that are so much more impressive. What they do not understand is that most USA resdidents are not going to travel to Teotihuacán, Monte Alban, Chichen Itza, etc. They are going to Cancun and Puerto Vallarta and Los Cabos, and they might spend a few more days there if you can provide them with things like archeological sites, museums, old town centers, etc.

Somewhat related: when you are in Puerto Vallarta the indians you see are Huichol, but almost every person I've ever met in Puerto Vallarta who speaks an indigenous language speaks Nahuatl. So something is very wrong with the way the nearyb indigenous population is portrayed. The Huichol are colorful and their bead art sells. So they are portrayed as the local indigenous people even though most of the indigenous groups who eventually migrate to Puerto Vallarta are Nahuatl speakers. I'm very interested in information about the REAL indigenous population in Puerto Vallarta. There is a large segement of local history that is missing from the standard account and it concerns the indigenous peoples and their regional stability. My guess is that the area was colonized extensively by the Mexica in the 1400s and that this was the most significant force in shaping the area population until the mid 1900s. The spanish changed things superficially but they didn't displace people in the way that movements of indigenous tribes did. That's a pattern you see over and over and over in latin america.Tbyrnestl 03:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

I've deleted the Puerto Vallarta Botannical Garden external link. It's listed as a landmark with the link to it's site there, and that's clearly where it belongs. It doesn't belong as an external link because it's not a site that offers any sort of generally usefull information about Puerto Vallarta. I originally pulled the reference from the main introduction because it clearly isn't that important. It doesn't belong in the opening general comments about the city. It's not even located in the municipio of PV. Tbyrnestl 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Hello tbyrnestl, thank You for reviewing my site. I my self believe that still is missing a lot quality on mys site to be mentioned in the articles text. But with time it could be an option. The Huichol are located more to the north, not here. The same for the Cora and other groups. The indigan population I mention are the Mexica, I have a photo for You which is very nice, later I will put it on my site, and I will tell You where to find it. A real indigan population around Vallarta does not more exist. What we have here around Vallarta are about 30 archeological sites, the CUC features a little, really little collection of artefacts. As You are really interested about the area, I will get You in contact with an US citizen, archeologist. He is able to give You any kind of exact information You are looking for. Just give me one day. C.G.

Hello tbyrnestl, for the moment I can give You this link ( in spanish ) http://www.uncg.edu/arc/Vallarta/. If You get in contact with them, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, surely they can help You to find a good source. C.G.

That site is perfect - everything one might care to know about archeology in the Puerto Vallarta area. I'm e-mailing the author to see if he would be interested in writing a section on local archeology. I'm happy to see the dig descriptions for many of he artifacts exhibited in the Museo on the Isla Cuale. That museum impresses me, especially compared to the poor quality of the Museo archeologico del occidente in Guadalajara (a very good collection very poorly displayed - an emberassment really for Jalisco. I suspect the Cuale museum is funded because of the desire to get cruise and resort tourists into the Centro, where tourist dollars multiply at a higher rate than they do when spent at the Bugambillas.75.92.165.227 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl