Talk:Eureka, California

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

Discussion of removal of Domestic Violence External Link...Just who do we think the audience is here?[edit]

The point of the article and the audience is more to do with the larger demographic than the agenda of particular editors. The link to domestic violence is really inapropriate in this type of article. This is an INTRODUCTORY article on a city. Is that the proper location for specific issues such as Domestic Violence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.129.75 (talk • contribs)

There are a bunch of links in the external links section of this article that do not fit within the Wikipedia's External links policies. Movie theater listings?
Among other problems, the Wikipedia is WP:NOT WikiTravel. Unless a tourist attraction is specifically mentioned in the body text of the article, it has no place in the external links, and if the place has its own article (e.g. Sequoia Park Zoo), the external link needs to be only in that article.
I've now deleted a few external links, plus reorganized the section so that individual links are easier to find. BlankVerse 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great job of cleaning up links! We may reduce it further as DAUGHTER articles are spawned or further developed. Norcalal 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the external links that I left in the article: I didn't check any of them, so someone should check each one to see how valuable they are as an encyclopedia resource. For example: Some added a link to the Long Beach Historical Society to the Long Beach, California article. That would have been great if there was some good information on the website, since the Long Beach article is pretty skimpy and scatter-shot in the history section. Instead, the website had just office hours and info on how to become a member, so it was useless as a Wikipedia link. BlankVerse 12:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law Enforcement Details[edit]

User 24.248.42.81: I have reverted most of your last edits, here are my reasons:

Removal of "He likely will not, however, as there is not sufficient evidence of a crime." I think you are trying to say he will not "win" but nevertheless, this is a civil suit and no one has any idea of the outcome, so what you write is just opinion.

changed "6-00 feet, 180lbs" to "5 feet 11 inches, 170 lbs" why? because this figure is sourced, as in the source link right next to the figure, please follow it and read. This is probably irrelevant detail anyway.

Removal of "10-inch" I have no idea how long the knife was, but I have never seen the size mentioned in any credible source. The cycle of edits that this figure has gone through is astounding. Obviously people have a vested interest in this figure. I think it is irrelevant detail.

Removal of ", liberal, anti-government anarchist" since this pretty much refers to the Green Party (a party that holds governmental posistions in the region and around the country) I hardly see how you can call them "anti-government anarchist" and I think saying "liberal" is really just irrelevant. In any case, you seem to be using these terms in a way very similar to name-calling, that would fall under the category of POV. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, please read it.--Metatree 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion that Editors consider moving current government and law issues to NEW HUMBOLPEDIA site....[edit]

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ANNOUNCE/LINK OF THE NEW SITE... This section now also at the new HUMBOLPEDIA: The Humboldt County Specific Wiki! -the place for local residents and others to share current events and culture -- or anything local to Humboldt County.Norcalal 10:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Norcalal: For one thing, that site doesn't receive visits as frequently as this Wikipedia article does. With such a low audience range, it is not as effective in educating a casual reader as this Wiki article is. Why do you feel the need to delete/alter/edit information regarding Humboldt County that you may deem unfavorable? These topics (Wiyot conflict, law enforcement issues) are all extremely significant topics in and around the county, and they deserve their places on this Wiki, in order to inform and educate the casual reader. Truth and history aren't always pretty, but that's no reason to go and delete, edit, or alter what's written.

The topics should stay right where they are, instead of getting shoved into a low-traffic website.

In response to the above, I agree some issues should stay right here at Wikipedia, however at Humbolpedia] there is more room to write Opinions and articles on issues from a diferent vantage point. Here at Wikipedia articles should not have a voice rather should be unbiased in anyway. At humbolpedia we will be able to aproach articles in a way that is more expressive. For example there could be a whole page for the Wiot Conflict complete with links to Articles on the subject and Opinions on the each article, each article could then inturn be refrenced to Wikipedia. - I think it will be a good thing.

In response to the above: You can write all of the opinions you want at Humboldpedia. Go ahead. But you can't move articles (which aren't biased in the least bit, thanks) about significant events in Eureka out of this wiki. That's censorship, plain and simple. And if you delete them, then we will continue to put them back.

I made no attempt to delete the article since the announcement of HUMBOLPEDIA, but did a major reconstruction of the Eureka article in November to improve the overall quality and expand and develop sections based on other model artticles like those on SF and various smaller cities. MY GOAL was to consider sweeping aspects of the community and consider broad interests of typical encyclopedia users. SOME editors in the beating to death of scandal here are ONLY interested in their anger over injustice and somehow think that publishing the minutia of these ridiculous scandals somehow helps it. I am concerned ONLY about what the average seeker may want to find in this type of encyclopedia. This is NOT a blog or a place to grind an axe...especially for an editor whose own local paper- now outdated resource (which has attempted to grind this axe RE: the Eureka PD in the local area and failed) has such low readership. In other words the vast majority of people inquiring here are NOT interested in the dirty laundry. Of note is the fact that persons who may be looking to move here who have considerable social conscious may look elsewhere as they read of this exorbidant level of detail herein that the local police have a major problem. These types in their inquiry might even over time address such issues if they moved here. But in their cursory glance would look at the Eureka and Arcata articles (and in comparison with others) note the sad state of affairs HERE and move to Eugene or some other place instead. So go ahead and continue to shoot your foot off...I am sure it feels good....otherwise why do it? AGAIN, very few people who use this type of resource care about this ridiculous level of detail on these scandals....this is not unusual among many locales in the history and related socioeconomic conditions all accross the country, but the incessant runing on about the scandal at this level of detail in this type of article is bizarre....and sad. The stated goal of education (according to the above editor) does nothing to obliterate the glaring inappropriateness and the insistance of an editor whose own failed publication could not gain support locally, so this individual (and a few others on the fringe) is/are determnined to make the sad news of one local police department the thing of greatest detail and minutia that local kids and visitors remember as they look to this article for basics like population, educational resources, and cultural attributes for school reports and to narrow down cool places to live. They instead dont see how cool it is here in Eureka because the focus demands their attention away from that and toward the unspeakable situations involving certain members of the local police and three unfortunate souls. Good job...aren't you glad you get to run your mouth here now that your paper, the HUMBOLDT SENTINAL failed? Bravo!Norcalal 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Norcalal: Way to flip out there, pal. You're the one who looks foolish with such a long-winded response full of insults and assumptions (such as the Humboldt Sentinel remark - with which I have never had any affiliation). Time and time again, I have plainly stated my case here. Here it is, once more: These matters (Wiyot, Law enforcement, etc.) are of great significance to the Humboldt community, and should not be altered or deleted due to their unfavorable light. There you have it. In the future, you should remember to exercise a little restraint, and think your arguments through.

I referred to the person with that affiliation and OTHERS on the fringe. My argument is sound. Have the editors so categorized contributed anything that would be of use to others that doesnt have something to do with scandal? Interesting how the above editor suggests the high road, yet doesnt sign a name. And the truth remains that ONLY to a few folks are these issues of such great significance in a forum such as this one...but due to the nature of Wiki tolerance, the entire world has to get the blow-by blow detail of the scandal a few are determined to force down the throats of everyone else. Nothing writen here will go to fix the messes locally. But the bad press will continue to beat an already economically depressed area and help GUARANTEE more of these sad events that continue in the wake of the destruction of a now dead economic monoculture (i.e. the loss timber industry, which has never been replaced). Again, I say congratulations. YOU (all of you on the fringe) WIN...BUT DO YOU FEEL BETTER? I think probably not. By the way, have any of you so determined to run this litany of stuff on the local police scandal found any such content on other cities? Well actually in a survey of at least 30 other cities in the nothern part of the state, there is nothing like this. Hmmm...maybe one ought to wonder why?...and consider that it is definitely not for the lack of scandal or drug issues or crimes, including murder in any of the other 30 cities...There is nothing that my argument says that supports the alleged crime of the Eureka PD, what I am saying is that this type of encyclopedic reference is not the soapbox these persons want it to be, it just isn't. And there is nothing appropriate about this issue existing here in such detail. This belongs in a blog and in the local papers, and so on....and everyone, if honest, can have no other conclusion. This will eventually go to arbitration and it will be removed. In the meantime development of the article will continue as a resource for potential visitors and residents and little kids who need to write reports. Those are the things this encyclopedia is for. Again it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA--a general reference... nothing more, nothing less.Norcalal 07:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE KEEP THIS CURRENT!

I've left, and found out that they've killed 2 more times! I know how widespread the police brutality is, I've suffered it just because I've critised the cops in front of the city council. having left the area, my information is old, so someone else could handle it in a more timely way.


76.195.6.231 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)coexist[reply]

Everybody, take a deep breath and relax[edit]

Both sides of this issue need to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. (and QUITE SHOUTING!)

Here is an outsider's view: The "Recent government and law enforcement issues" section is way too large, but the information should be covered. It shouldn't be too hard to condense the basics down to a couple of paragraphs. If you want to go into more detail, write up an article for Wikinews instead.

The issues, however, shouldn't be whitewashed. There are plenty of articles on cities that include sections on controversies within those cities, including Compton, California#City Government controversies, Maywood, California#Controversy, South Gate, California#Scandal and corruption, and Huntington Beach, California#City government controversies. That is part of what an encyclopedia article is all about—covering the good and the bad from a neutral point of view without overemphasis on any one particular issue. Notice, however, that those sections in the city articles on local controversies are all brief and to the point.

That should provide a good middle ground. Can everybody work within those guidelines? BlankVerse 05:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody followed my suggestion, I've shrunk down the law enforcement section myself. I still think that it's too large, but hopefully it's something that both sides can live with for now.
To the PacBell/AT&T anonymous editor: Please do not leave notes or argue with other editors in the middle of the article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. If you have comments or complaints, you should make them here on the talk page. If you continue your unencyclopedic edits, the page will be semi-protected, which means that anonymous IP edits will no longer be allowed. BlankVerse 07:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***

I suppose that "PacBell/AT&T anonymous editor" would be me, since it sounds like you are referring to what I wrote. And yes, I do have comments and a complaint. If you had left me a note in an HTML comment telling me why you did that instead of just commenting out what I wrote without a word, we could have avoided this misunderstanding completely.

Not only did you not do that but you did not identify yourself as a Wikipedia Moderator, which would also have been easy to do and the professional way of handling this. I would have said ok, I understand that. But since anyone can edit these articles and so few people seem to be interested in the Truth, I figured you were simply removing my note because you disagreed with what I said and because it is so easy to do. So each time you added HTML comments to remove my note, I took them out and put it back. Which I certainly would not have done if you had identified yourself as a Wikipedia Moderator and acted in a more professional manner.

Come to think of it, you haven't identified yourself at all. You can look at my IP Address but I can't do that, and since you haven't identified yourself at all, what am I supposed to think? You could be some punk on a power trip for all I know.

You did notice what I added the last time I removed the HTML comments, didn't you? "And to whoever keeps editing this page to remove my note, do you have any proof that what I said above is wrong? If you don't, leave my note alone if you don't mind. You can check the source like I did if you like. Which is what you should have done in the first place."

The whole point I was making, which is now even more important given your comment about my "unencyclopedic edits" as you called them, is that these articles should not be based on opinions, but on facts. If it is not possible to present facts, they should at least be as close to the truth as possible, wouldn't you agree?

That can be difficult I know, which is why it is commonly accepted that if something is reported by a reputable news source, it is usually accepted as "Truth". And the statement that was made about an investigation in progress by the California Attorney General’s Office against the Eureka Police Department is simply not true. So I pointed this out. Maybe I did it wrong, I don't know. I never said I could write an encyclopedia. But I can read and the article did not say that.

What you did was very unprofessional at best. So if you are in fact a Wikipedia Moderator, instead of threatening to make it so nobody can edit articles, why don't you learn how to be a better Moderator? If you had simply identified yourself as a Wikipedia Moderator, and explained why you were commenting out my note, it would have made a big difference.

Feel free to delete this after you have read it. 71.131.188.100 10:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will look at the article's edit history, you can see that I was not the person who used HTML comments to comment out your additions. The first time, it was commented out by User:Beit Or. The second time, it was commented out by user:Geo.plrd. It looks like neither of them have edited the Eureka, California article before, so they probably noticed your edits doing routine Wikipedia:recent changes or vandalism patrols. I assume that they commented out the note for the same reason that I would have done it—notes to other editors should go on the talk page and not in the article itself.
Pointing out errors of fact in Wikipedia articles (or what is often a bigger problem, ommision of facts) is a very good thing to do, but you should do it on the talk page, and not in the article.
If you think a statement needs a citation to back it up, you can add the {{fact}} template after the statement. If you think a statement needs clarification, go ahead and edit the statement (with an explanation of the reasons why in your edit summary). If you think that the statement is incorrect, then delete it (again, with an explanation in the edit summary). Deletions, however, can be contentious, so if you think that anyone might complain about your deletion, it is also a very good idea to explain your reasons on the article's talk page, either right before or right after the deletion..
note: I am not a Wikipedia moderator, mediator, administrator, sysop, or arbitrator. I'm just another editor—one who is trying to keep this article from getting too messy. I don't have any personal connections to Eureka, so I hope I can help the various editors on the article find an appropriate middle ground that follows Wikipedia Policies and guidelines.
If you want to know more about me, you can look at my user page, or my talk page. You can even look at my collection of short essays on the Wikipedia. BlankVerse is the user name that I use for almost all of my activities on the internet except for my poetry, so if you look up BlankVerse on Google, you can find my snarky comments on the RMS Queen Mary, among other things (there are a few other people using the same use name, but probably half of the BlankVerse userpages are mine). In some ways, you'll probably learn more about me from following my user name than if I gave you my real name.
And no, I wasn't trying to threaten you. I was saying what was very likely to happen if you continued to revert back to the same edit, when it is clear that several other editors diagreed and have reversed your edits. That is called revert warring, and it is highly frowned upon on the Wikipedia. If you do that more than three times in a 24 hr. period, that is an [[WP:#RR|automatic temporary block from editing]]. If it is clear that a rotating group of IPs are doing the reversions (as in your case), the solution could be a temporary block on a block of IPs, or more likely, the semiprotection of the article, which means that registered users can edit, but anon IPs can not edit the article. BlankVerse 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*** Ok, I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I do have to say this is a classic example of why Wikipedia is not taken seriously as an encyclopedia by a lot of people. The articles are quite often biased and or inaccurate. I live in Eureka, and my kids all went to Eureka Schools. And while I admit they are not the greatest schools in the world, (in fact I don't know as I could think any less of them than I do, but that's another story), I can't say that I was surprised when one of them had to completely rewrite a report because they had used Wikipedia as a source of information.

Perhaps the problem is too many editors and not enough verification of facts? I don't know. I have talked to a number of people who have written or corrected articles on here, and the usual story is that it isn't worth your time and effort to do so because there are so many misinformed people writing or editing articles, and that there is not a working system of checks and balances. At first I didn't understand, but I see their point now.

Eureka certainly has it's problems, I don't deny that. But if you don't want this article to "get messy" as you say, I regret to inform you that it is too late. There are portions of this article that are not an accurate description of Eureka at all. In fact, it's not even close. However, in all fairness, I also have to say that if you go by the "Internet Standard of Proof" as I usually call it, the citing of news articles published by reputable news sources, you would be hard pressed to get any good news sources from Eureka. Which is sad but true, because they are all biased in one way or another.

But overall, in spite of some obvious problems and some very misinformed people (like any city large or small), and some of the worst tasting water you've ever had in a mountain community, it really isn't a bad place to live. I have lived here for half of my life and I wouldn't go anywhere else if you paid me. (At least not unless you paid me an awful lot...)

71.131.178.209 21:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started editing the Wikipedia two years ago, it was a real PITA to do references, so that's the reason that many older articles have very few references, or only have inline links as references. With the fairly recent addition of the CITE extension to the MediaWiki software, it is much, much easier to do references. Add to that the better designed and easier to use group of citation templates, such as {{cite news}} for citing newspaper sources, it is so much easier to do references on the Wikipedi now.
Many of the newer articles that are being created by regular Wikipedia editors are now well-documented as they are created. It is the older articles that are going to take awhile to document properly. An older large article, such as Los Angeles, California is going to take quite awhile before it is brought up to more current Wikipedia citation standards.
If you think there are problems in the Eureka article, you can point them out here, or you can start editing the article itself. Just remember that for major deletions, or controversial edits, it is usually best to discuss matters on the talk page before editing. Also keep in mind that as an encyclopedia, it isn't just the Chamber of Commerce view that is presented, but a warts-and-all discussion, done from a neutral point of view.
As for having problems with using the Wikipedia as a source, you should never cite any encyclopedia as a source. You can use the Wikipedia (or the Encyclopedia Britanica or Encarta) as a place to get ideas, but then you need to go to the primary sources for your references.
Actually, that's not quite true. I'd still use the Wikipedia as one of my sources for topics such as the internet, where the Wikipedia is likely to be one of the most accurate, up-to-date, and neutral sources available. I'd still never use the Wikipedia as the only reference.
I'd suggest that if you are going to continue editing on the Wikipedia, to get yourself a user account. Besides making it easier to keep track of all of your edits, and making it easier to communicate with other Wikipedia editors, you can also create a watchlist of articles that you are interested in, so you can see when any of them have been edited recently. BlankVerse 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I left the note there because it made a valid point but I commented it out because it should have been on the talk page. Geo. 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad there are other cities that cover the negative side, too. To someone who visits, and plans on moving, the entertainment venues are much more obvious than the police scandals. I have also seen a few good signs: The most notorious cop in town has become polite; people are now carrying videocams to watch the cops; some (potentially lethal?) actions are done with police from other agencies (Arcata PD, CHP), maybe they're getting feedback. The EPD had a track record of 1 fatality about every 4 years, if they go 2 years without another, we should include that, and the possible causes.

Coexist 07:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Coexist[reply]

Be Bold, say something good[edit]

If you have something good to say about Eureka and can cite your sources, please add it. I think the negative history that meets wikipedia NPOV guidelines should remain. I agree that some of the words used in the article did not meet NPOV guidelines. However, sugar-coating or deleting verified history doesn't make sense. Yes, there is more to Eureka than racism and genocide. There are a lot of print articles about the art and music communities in Eureka, for example. Vampyrecat 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that if I saw anything good come of the current problems I would. Look at "responding to the crisis". I'm very excited about the mayor's recruiting community members to assist in solving these problems. In the past, Eureka has been a jumble of "toughlove" programs that drive rebels who would have bumper stickers that say "US out of Humboldt County" INTO the loonie bin, and "clean and sober" houses that are anything but, and create something new. Virginia is an incredible consensus builder who welcomes even the angriest members of any political persuasion to help if their interests is truely in the comunnity. The honesty, caring and concern she has elicited from both sides of the spectrum may create miracles. Coexist 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)coexist[reply]

Moved Be Bold comment[edit]

The previous comment was placed at the top of this talk page. New comments are placed at the bottom of a talk page. Will research how to create an archive for this page. I suggest editors move on from these issues and work toward creating a page worthy of featured article status.--al95521 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thanks for moving it, archiving, etc. Vampyrecat 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Transportation Section?[edit]

Isn't that usually dealt with quite well by using maps, and today GPS? Seems like that just lentghens the article without adding anything that a wikipedia reader would find useful. Keeping the article consise is something we all should strive for.

Coexist 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)coexist[reply]

I think that all the information is helpful in a textural format. Thanks you for not removing the info. When I visit other sites, I want to know the things I added to the Eureka page. I could work on sourcing the information if that would help. I think the best thing to do is have a really good table of contents so that users can jump to what they want to read.--al95521 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media[edit]

You did a nice job of making the content more consise just like you wanted. Although, just like my comment above, less is not more in my opinion. I thougt the date information was on topic. You could add that in again if you had any second thoughts. My aim is to have a feature article quality page. If we get too much info on one subject we can always spin off to a new page.--al95521 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)149.136.25.254 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

I took out the piece about the humboldt sentinel because it is pretty much non exsistant.

Weather[edit]

Went to Weather.com and could not substantiate the 17 degree low. 20 degrees (f) is still the low.--al95521 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial View of Eureka and Humboldt Bay[edit]

Did some research to determine the date of the photo and arrived at the following: Since both pulp mills were obviously functioning in the photo, this picture must be previous to the December 1992 shuttdown by Simpson of the pulp mill at Fairhaven (this is the one easier to see located south and east of the other operating mill on the Samoa Peninsula, which was Louisianna Pacific at the time). Also, for reference. the Fairhaven Power Company plant (a smaller plume of steam - mostly) then a subsidiary of the Eel River Saw Mills (now bankrupt and in receivership) is running just due west of the now completely dismantled Simpson Pulp Mill. For a resource check: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3636/is_199710/ai_n8770298 "Pulp & Paper", October 1997 by Miller, Drew. Norcalal 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest Pacifc coastal city north of SF in US?[edit]

Last I checked, Seattle was on the coast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.246.219 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Seattle, which is situated on an isthmus between Puget Sound and Lake Washington, is 2.5 hours from the Pacific Ocean. In travel there last summer it was quite clear that due to its summer temperatures that it really is not "coastal." Nevertheless both it and Portland are significantly larger than Eureka... of course. Norcalal 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Portland is also not coastal. It's some 70 odd miles from the coast.--Xaraphim (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boston?? Smallbones (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN, THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP. A long time editor made adjustments to a non-registered editors attempt to removed the following well-written AND carefully worded statement about Eureka: "Eureka is the largest city north of San Francisco situated on the Pacific Ocean in the Continental United States." THE STATEMENT IS TRUE. IT HAS NO BEARING OR RELATIONSHIP TO PORTLAND, SEATTLE, OLYMPIA, TACOMA, OR ANY OF THOSE CITIES, WHICH MOST DEFINITELY ARE LARGER...BUT GUESS WHAT! NONE, I REPEAT NONE OF THOSE CITIES ARE ON THE PACIFIC OCEAN/COAST...NOT A ONE OF THEM. CAN WE BE DONE WITH THIS? MULTIPLE EDITORS, WHO ARE REGISTERED ASSISTED THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT MADE SOME TIME AGO TO BE BETTER WRITTEN. ITS AIR TIGHT. LET US MOVE ON. I also went a step further for clarification: I added the vernacular version (West Coast) of the "West Coast of the United States to further make the point. Eureka IS the largest by population and area of all cities situated directly on the Pacific Coast all the way to Canada. Period. It is indisputable. I will say it one more time: BEFORE you bring up Portland and Seattle and others, look very closely at a map. They are NOT on the Pacific Ocean. They just aren't. There is no city north of San Francisco that exceeds Eureka in population or area...not Bolinas, not Fort Ross, not Mendocino, not Fort Bragg, not Gualala, not Crescent City, not Brookings, not even Coos Bay (whose port is slightly larger), not Gold Beach, not Florence, not Lincoln City, not Tilamook, not Astoria, and certainly none of the even more remote towns on the Olympic Peninsula. Now, please understand. Thank you. Norcalal (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't shoot me, but I rewrote that sentence one more time. I think it incorporates your concerns and flows through the concepts better than it did before. I also fixed citations, and etc. this morning. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a citation from a reliable source that Eureka is the largest coastal city north of San Francisco would solve the problem instead of adding original research. 72Dino (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add any original research. I checked pre-existing citations and fixed grammar in one particularly tricky part. But your point is a good one. Even though on many other Wiki pages, it is considered in poor form to put citations in the lede paragraph; however in the spirit of "following what was already done," and also User:72Dino's suggestion, I have added a citation to the section and once-again reworded that sentence based on the General Plan of the City of Eureka which reads: "Page 3: Located on California's North Coast, Eureka is the westernmost city of the contiguous United States and the largest coastal city in California north of San Francisco. Eureka is situated on Humboldt Bay, which is the most important port between San Francisco and Coos Bay Oregon." PDF General Plan I am unable to find a citation which makes the full and exact statement made by Norcalal that Eureka is the largest coastal city in the U.S. north of San Francisco. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another anonymous editor tried to cut up the location extremes section of the main article today. I'd refer people to the Extreme points of the United States and also remind that the citation is quoted in the citation, that's what the citation says and if one wishes to change it, one needs to cite a source not just cut out pieces. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Introduction Section[edit]

I have been working to improve this article intermitantly since November 2006. I had fleshed out the intro section and then another editor removed much of the detail. Noting that what I had was likely too much, I think the following is the goal we can achieve, which is in alignment with the WikiProject Cities project:

From the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Proposed Template

LEAD section

The introductory section should introduce the article about the city, serving as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, and explaining why the subject is interesting or notable.

This section should follow the guidelines specified under WP:LEAD. Additionally, a couple of items should be included in the lead section for city articles, including: 

   * Name of city and location in state
   * City proper population (one number)
   * Metro population (one number)
   * Brief note about historical roots/founding
   * Nicknames, if notable
   * Primary industries supporting its economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc...)
   * Notable unique characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it

Previous notes on the reduction of what was listed in the introduction area before included removing details that exist in the info box. This generally makes sense. However, the template (above) has both and duplicates population, for example. ~Norcalal 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Talk Page Header[edit]

Seems like a great idea...it focuses or re-focuses the effort to article quality only! Maybe through that lense, the maturation of this article can progress... ~ Norcalal 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Humboldt Sentinal issue returns[edit]

This online only media reference has no current reporting. In fact there is no article dated after Spring 2006. The insistance that this be placed alongside or in front of weekly papers or even the daily major papers is preposterous. In regard to the editor who continually places it in the article, the solution to its constant removal is easy: Simply make it a viable current media source and other editors including myself will see its relevance...Makes sense to me Norcalal 15:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Eureka Demographics Issues[edit]

I request that editors place demographic issues in a discussion format before removing them entirely. I disagree with the removal of the Micropolitan area from the Eureka listing and so I put it back, though in abbreviated form. Norcalal 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some demographics that are duplicated could be removed from the info box or the demographic section. Not sure of the protocol. Norcalal 06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to bring the section more in line with other California city articles. This is within the scope of a wider wikiproject, though I am not editing on behalf of that project nor claiming that this is a settled issue. However, prior editors had bumped the boilerplate demographics section in favour of material inconsistent with WP policy, for example:

"The Cities of Eureka, Arcata, and Fortuna and their environs comprise the heart of this US Census designated trading area.[7] [failed verification] The total population of this area is estimated at or around 100,000."

First of all, the source was merely a list of micropolitan areas. A micropolitan area is a "geographic entit[y] defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics." (Pop. Div., US Census) It is not a "US Census designated trading area".
Second, that Eureka, Arcata, and Fortuna comprise the heart of the Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna micropolitan area seems self-evident. Otherwise, that is best dealt with by linking to the micropolitan area article.
And, most importantly, as you can tell by following the provided link, the micro area contains only one FIPS county code, Humboldt County. "The Cities [sic] of Eureka, Arcata, and Fortuna and their environs" includes all of Humboldt County and nothing else. Oddly, though the micro area has a population figure different from that of the county.
For these reasons, I lumped that with the unreferenced material and removed it all. (See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.) I let the "trading area" bit stand for now because it may be a reference to the Ranally city rating system, but I did move it to a less prominent place and fact tag it. It is subject to prompt deletion w/o source.
Please refer to Pop. Div., US Census (see also the Truckee and Grass Valley pages, which do not mention micropolitan status except via inclusion in Category:Micropolitan areas of California) and see if this is more to your liking:

Eureka is the urban core of the Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna Micropolitan Area, which has a population of 126,518.

Nowiki: Eureka is the [[urban]] core of the [[Humboldt_County|Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna]] [[United_States_micropolitan_area|Micropolitan Area]], which has a population of 126,518.

As there is nothing to be said about the E-A-F micro area, except what can be said about Humboldt County, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The article is already included in the category, although that category should probably have links only from the micropolitan counties.
Moving on to broader issues, the history section you are expanding will likely need to be made into a History of Eureka, California article. That's due to overall article length, not content or anything. Keep up the good work!
I plan on re-writing the transportation/public transportation section similarly to how I started on the section [1] on the Humboldt County page. Feedback appreciated. While I'm at it, what's with the Eureka Municipal Airport on the Samoa Peninsula? It appears at the same zoom level on Google Earth as Murray Field (IATA EKA), but has no IATA code. Does it merit mention in either article?
.s
X ile 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]
I appreciate the research into the issue. I am not convinced that the micropolitan area is synonymous with the County, otherwise what would be the point. I am for leaving it in the article. As far as article length, I am now convinced that the article can be anywhere upwards of 50 or more Kb before it needs to be reduced or split. This is per Wiki standards and practice within many City articles. Some City articles approach 90 or 100 kb, and have been peer reviewed and left in tact. If anything my comment was to get people thinking of developing daughter articles so the sections present in the main article would be summaries rather than all there is. Both Murray Field and the Samoa Airport (Eureka Municipal) are distinct entities. Norcalal 03:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I may be putting it too strongly. In terms of U.S. federal statistics, (FIPS) the micropolitan area is synonymous with the county. Consider that the population data ([2] (pdf)) is the same, and that the county and micropolitan area share a unique CBSA code.You will find the same at the state level. Cal. Labor Mkt. Info. Sys. (pdf)
The Census context, however, is not the final word. You probably have seen micropolitan area used in other contexts. Feel free to use the term however you like, but it should not be presented as an official designation in a non-transparent manner, nor given greater weight than an unconventional use merits.
What's the point? Did you notice that some of the micropolitan CBSA's consist of more than one county? The same for metros. The point, as I see it (and I do not speak for your government), is to aggregate related counties and county-equivalents for statistical purposes. That there are a number of single-county CBSA's is . . . well, it's just the way it works. All of the micropolitan CBSA's in California are single-county. I've already made the edits necessary (based on California census statistical areas and the already extant redirects) to fix the mis-categorisations at Category:Micropolitan areas of California. There is only one single-county metropolitan CBSA in California (Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura), and I am working on an AfD and redirect to fix that.
I could go on, at length, about this. Consider megalopolis, and the bloody nonsense on that page. How about Ventura County? Is there an "East County" and a "West County"? Who knows, but it matters from a "boots on the ground" POV (especially if you're selling real estate, ack!) The same with Redondo Beach/"North Redondo Beach". These are just some of the ones I've seen looking at California-only pages in the last few weeks. A lot of this is outright ghetto-isation. That is, "the x neighbourhood is considered by some [of course, it's always some] to be separate from x". X, of course, is Paradise and the x neighbourhood is a complete shithole. Often it's the other way around, but serving the same purpose. It's only a matter of time before this article gets hit with the same thing. The"Lundbar Hills neighbourhood is considered by some . . ." "Eureka's west side is considered by some . . ." (Sorry about the rant.)
I agree about the length. It's obvously a personal opinion, but Eureka's history is nearly as interesting as San Francisco's or Sacramento's during the U.S. period (before the post-war era, when Eureka's relative isolation coupled with public/economic policy and technological change left the city in the dust). I certainly wouldn't insist that the article be trimmed or split just because Eureka is currently a "small" city (relative to California). Consider the "larger" cities that have virtually no history. You wrote the section too well and I'm less aware of length problems since a recent upgrade anyway.
I'll get around to working on the transportation section. I have some things on my old computer pertaining to the port and railroad that I was planning on integrating into those articles that belong here as well. (Or maybe (?) they belong in the history section.)
I'll close with this quote from Pop. Div.: "Counties or equivalent entities form the geographic 'building blocks' for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.". For alternative uses check G. Scott Thomas's The Rating Guide to Life in America's Small Cities. (Thomas was the first to use the term.) While you're perusing that at your local library, you might also take a look at the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide (Ranally city rating system).
.s
X ile 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]
Thank you for your hard work looking into this. I appreciate the compliment on the History sections. Clearly later on that will mature and I suspect look different as a result. The following came up in the census regarding Metropolitan and Micropolitan areas: About Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas from [3]:
The United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas according to published standards that are applied to Census Bureau data. The general concept of a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Currently defined metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are based on application of 2000 standards [ PDF | Plain text ] (which appeared in the Federal Register on December 27, 2000) to 2000 decennial census data. Current metropolitan and micropolitan statistical area definitions were announced by OMB effective June 6, 2003.
Standard definitions of metropolitan areas were first issued in 1949 by the then Bureau of the Budget (predecessor of OMB), under the designation "standard metropolitan area" (SMA). The term was changed to "standard metropolitan statistical area" (SMSA) in 1959, and to "metropolitan statistical area" (MSA) in 1983. The term "metropolitan area" (MA) was adopted in 1990 and referred collectively to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). The term "core based statistical area" (CBSA) became effective in 2000 and refers collectively to metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas.
OMB has been responsible for the official metropolitan areas since they were first defined, except for the period 1977 to 1981, when they were the responsibility of the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, Department of Commerce. The standards for defining metropolitan areas were modified in 1958, 1971, 1975, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas
The 2000 standards provide that each CBSA must contain at least one urban area of 10,000 or more population. Each metropolitan statistical area must have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants. Each micropolitan statistical area must have at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 population.
Under the standards, the county (or counties) in which at least 50 percent of the population resides within urban areas of 10,000 or more population, or that contain at least 5,000 people residing within a single urban area of 10,000 or more population, is identified as a "central county" (counties). Additional "outlying counties" are included in the CBSA if they meet specified requirements of commuting to or from the central counties. Counties or equivalent entities form the geographic "building blocks" for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
If specified criteria are met, a metropolitan statistical area containing a single core with a population of 2.5 million or more may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of counties referred to as "metropolitan divisions."
As of June 6, 2000, there are 362 metropolitan statistical areas and 560 micropolitan statistical areas in the United States. In addition, there are 8 metropolitan statistical areas and 5 micropolitan statistical areas in Puerto Rico.

Principal Cities and Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Titles
The largest city in each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is designated a "principal city." Additional cities qualify if specified requirements are met concerning population size and employment. The title of each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area consists of the names of up to three of its principal cities and the name of each state into which the metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area extends. Titles of metropolitan divisions also typically are based on principal city names but in certain cases consist of county names.

THEREFORE, within this area the CORE is Eureka, Arcata and Fortuna. All of those populations and the CDPs as well as unincorporated portions of that core area make up the core of the Micropolitan area. Careful mathematics (more than I have engaged in thus far) will provide the exact population of that core. This total population is less than the county as the core is only Eureka, Arcata, Fortuna and their adjacent developed communities. For example Eureka clearly includes 5 CDPs (Bayview • Cutten • Humboldt Hill • Myrtletown • Pine Hills) which are contiguous and adjacent. All 5 of those CDPs have Eureka addresses, but are unincorporated areas of Humboldt County. There is a significant difference in the writting of statistics on the web and the "community reality" of the places described. GArberville and Willow Creek are not part of the core urban area by any stretch of the imagination, yet they are in the County population total. I will state that until recently Cutten had a separate PO, but the other 5 (specifically listed) are all within the 95501 and 95503 zip codes. Those ARE Eureka. The fact is that there is no clean or easy way for one to account for the nearly 50,000 persons whose addresses are in Eureka, California. Yet that is a reality that needs to be addressed. I intend to ask for (written) clarification from the City of Eureka and The Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce what Greater Eureka means to them, exactly. Basically it doesnt matter what anyone here thinks of it if they define it. The point of this is to define the core or principal city in a fashion that is accurate and depicts the demographics of IT. The City Limits of Eureka has changed little in many years, but its contiguous unincorporated area have changed and developed significantly by comparison-so much so that the population of that area is around 20,000. I see this as connecting the dots and not as original research, by the way. On another level or in another aspect, Most of Del Norte County ends up in Eureka for its needs from Costco to medical specialists as does much of northern Mendocino and a significant number Trinity county's residents. I look to see if the statistics and published information provide insight into this. Where it does, I consider using it to complete an accurate story. However one slices it up, there is no accuracy in an article that leaves out these murky aspects and issues. Just because the story is not easy to define, does not mean it should not be reflected. Research is the difference between where this is now between the half told story and the accuracy of a complete picture. ONE other issue is that of the History of Eureka. There is more to be told of the history and culture after the 1950's. So far that is the weakest portion of the history. The prominence of that story exists, but has yet to be reflected in the artical. Time and work will fill in the blanks concisely! Norcalal 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


The designations and details are replaced as per new or previous citations. These are demographic facts that tell important information and the citations are solid. I saw no reason to wait. The fact is that this is a small urban core and the Greater Eureka Area most definitely (and officially) exists. Norcalal 09:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realised the discussion was closed.
Al, you're confusing functional regions with an already existing formal region. That you need to do the math suggests that you're engaging in OR. If you can provide a source for a "core urban area" population consistent with WP content policies, please do so. Hard or easy--if you can't define the story within WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV then it does mean that it should not be reflected.
I assure you that you are not the only one dissatisfied with U.S. Census or other official geographies and terminologies. Again, I suggest you take a look at some of the other place articles. Pushing ill-defined and unconventional regionalisation schemes and then justifying them with dubious data has wider implications. Does your 100,000 include McKinleyville? Does Census' core urban area? (If you can't answer that, then it obviously has no place in the article.) Will your inclusion of McKinleyville offend McKinleyvillians? Will your exclusion of McKinleyville offend McKinleyvillians? Now extrapolate that to nation-scale articles and imagine how much editor and admin time is wasted in bitter disputes.
All that needs to be said about the micropolitan area in the Eureka article is that Eureka is the principal city. The article's content and links will take care of the rest. The sources presented in this discussion, which you requested, demonstrate that the E-A-F micro area is a U.S. Census designation and that it is equivalent to the county in this context.
I can stretch my imagination to include Garberville and Willow Creek in the "core urban area". Can you stretch yours to include Blue Lake and Rio Dell/Scotia? Are those communities outside an area that connects discontiguous census blocks or block groups that have a population density of at least 500/mi²?
If you must obsess on this, don't link this "core urban area" to the U.S. Census. The difficulty in finding data from Census on this "core urban area" suggests that they have little use for it, no matter how critically important it may be locally. This is not a unique situation.
.s
X ile 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]
Adjusted EAF Micropolitan reference as suggested. I am satisfied to see the definitions of these issues above stand in their narrower interpretations, where the local government fails to provide designations or definitions. Norcalal 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gold Rush subsection needs consideration[edit]

The very begining of the history of Eureka is connected to the mining operations of the Trinity River area. This secondary source of Gold in California was never really considered part of the initial Gold Rush. This section really needs changing. An primary article on Eureka is incorrect in using placing significant discussion on the Gold Rush, with the exception of the historical original use of the word, "Eureka!". Ultimately the discovery of Eureka and Humboldt Bay and County could idealy be placed in daughter articles or in those separate articles. But for now the Gold Rush issue is really overdone in a main article of this size. Comments anyone? Norcalal 04:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Made significant adjustments in the Histroy section (including the Gold Rush issue). It may be that their needs to be daughter articles soon as the article reaches maximum optimum size. Consideration of where to begin to cut or start new development may be in order Norcalal 06:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Vandalism or Correction of article to previous state[edit]

Suspected vandalism corrected. Not sure how it came to occur, but the article and much of recent developments in the history section, infobox (including the removal of official City seal and a picture of the (Greater) Eureka Area), and several research citations were removed. The intro area was reduced to a claim the Eureka is the westernmost city in the continental US. It seems that major revamps or changes in major sections must show some continuity with previous work or at the minimum ought to improve the article. Movement of the climate section back to the top was also uncalled for since it is part and parcel of standard Wiki procedure in City articles. Expansions and changed OR removed details or entire sections might do well to make sense. For example putting a section that has Eureka "POST 1850" is redundant since the City did not begin until then. In any case major article changes of any kind need more than an anonymous number attached to them OR at least some rational or explanation. That was clearly not the case in this instance. There was no reason given. Norcalal 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw massive removal and changes to the Eureka Article without any rationale discussed. I reverted the article and then saw that xfile made them. I think we need to discuss this. Removal of a great picture and the seal? There is no major city article that does not have these. History sections need discussion before the major changes in structure. And again what is up with the Humboldt Sentinal preeminence that does not exist? This internet based publication (with no or little current reporting) cannot possibly be placed in a prominent position over The Journal. Also reverting The Journal to its former name is incorrect. Westernmost city??? Ferndale is further west and I was already taken to task there as xfile made a point about my addition of the same comment to the article by the same name. Eureka is a construct that did not exist before 1850. It makes no sense to have a Post 1850 section. There is nothing transitional about the economy until after the 1970's. Until then it was all about lumber, lumber, lumber! Norcalal 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, Al. If you check the article history, you can see that I made some modest edits in the demo section and removed some meth-related nonsense from the intro on 6 July. On 8 July, I noticed a spam link from User:69.12.132.57 on this and the Humboldt County article. While investigating the spammer, I had the article open to this version [4], where the spam was added. When I removed the spam, I saved the old version minus spam. Here's the diff [5].
I do not support any of the changes I made inadvertently, and I am sorry that you had to waste time cleaning up. I just wasted some trying to figure out how I had done it. I will have to keep in mind that even when editing and previewing just one small section, I may be changing quite a bit more when I save. — X ile 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]
A appreciate the error. I was taken by surprise at the weird state the article was in. And I was surprised since there had been appreciation for the direction of development in the history section. As is evident I made some edits that were suggested re: limiting the reference to the Micropolitan area. Happy editing here includes the forced humility of knowing nothing here is permanent. Norcalal 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits and Major Changes[edit]

I propose that work done in this article needs to be done with some discussion beforehand with edits then proceeding some days after proposal. The radical or huge edits recently done make it clear that this or another equally respectful solution is necessary. There is no way to guarantee that persons doing edits will follow this suggestion, but massive restructuring by single editors with little regard to the work before needs to be done in increments. Single major edits over many sections and or subsections (which I have done myself) are clearly not the best practice with regard to other editors. Ultimately all must strive to find consensus and seek to work together rather than independently. For example, edits removing or changing one or two sections could follow discussion allowing time for interested parties to see the rationale and change incrementally. In this manner issues of contention can be dealt with affected section or subsection at a time. Thank you for considering this as a potential solution. Please discuss

Norcalal 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm quick to revert non-constructive edits, but otherwise I'm not working on a daily (or hourly) basis like some other editors. As I noted above, my recent major change was inadvertent, so there's no need for extensive debate over future changes. You certainly wouldn't have wanted to wait a few days to revert that edit just to ensure consensus.
We can work independently and still work collaboratively. As long as content disputes are moved quickly from the article to the talk page everything should be fine. Feel free to change anything I do to any article, and bear in mind "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." [emphasis in original] — X ile 16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]
I am well aware of the Wiki warning regarding editing. I can assure any editor that anytime I encounter a disaster on the level of the recent one, it will be dealt with swiftly. Content discussion and issues over the finer points of information and structure are expected. Work of the many always ultimately supersedes the quality of the few or the individual. Norcalal 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: REMOVAL of "For other uses, see Yreka, California" header that was placed in lead of article[edit]

Yreka is not another use of the word Eureka and Eureka is not another use of the word Yreka. Granted there may be some confusion, including the fact that the entire time JC Penney had stores in both locations, they routinely messed up orders bound for one city or the other. However, they are not the same word and the use of a header at this level of an article is especially obvious as the error in this usage of "For other uses, see..." To clarify further, there is no use of Eureka that is Yreka and no use of Yreka that is Eureka, period. The error in speaking or reading the word or name is not worthy of placement at the beginning of the article, even if the reference was more correctly stated. Norcalal 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to link Eureka High School to the seperate page about it, but as there are multiple Eurekas in the U.S., it leads to a disambiguation page. can somebody help me link it directly? HeseGrande (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seal of Eureka, CA.jpg[edit]

Image:Seal of Eureka, CA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent photo changes.[edit]

The replacement photo placed in the infobox should showcase the city and not be JUST a picture of a picture, or a photo that focuses on the Carson Mansion (which has a better quality picture in the article already), or a photo that shows an undeveloped industrial area, for example. What is the goal of constantly putting sub par photos here? In what way does that improve or represent this article? I have had no response from Offrecord09 (talk) and my request that photos be submitted here for the community to consider has not led to any response except demanding that sub-par photos be placed in the infobox. Norcalal (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three paragraphs need citations[edit]

As noted by User:Travis.Thurston three paragraphs in the post WWII section need citations and perhaps some writing assistance. I added "citation needed" tags and as time permits will seek citations for those paragraphs. If someone out there has citations for these, please add them in any form to the page!! Be bold!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But these edits by the anon user with the edit comments "The previous text leaves out the major reasons for the economic decline. I was there and affected by this." made no attempt to work the material in to already well-written lede. The mention of the Japanese mid-ocean milling being a major contributor to the economic decline of Eureka? Really?
The previous lede to the section summarized it all succinctly. "Overcutting and overfishing, increased regulation, and the creation of more parkland to preserve the remnants of once extensive virgin forests, rivers, and fisheries led to diminished...". Aside from the mention of "teepee burners", the "forced layoff of 10,000 employees", I think the gist of what contributed to the area's decline was already summarized well. These entries are nothing but original research lacking reliable sources. Yes, maybe a small portion of what was added could have been incorporated into the paragraph and I thought it best to have the editor contribute was via discussion page since there really was no attempt to assimilate the info into what was already there. I'd recommend the additions be brought over here and then worked into the WWII section where appropriate. --Travis Thurston+ 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I disagree with that former lede. I think it also lacked reliable sources and was someone else's original research when written. There are many opinions about what led to an alleged economic decline. Alleged because depending on how you count it, many indicators are that the economy is better now that when timber and fishing were king. As for the three paragraphs that you cut before, please bring them to the discussion page. But please don't just cut out whole chunks of pages based on the comments in the edit lines, whether by ip users or named users!! We can find the reliable sources, or remove the statements as unsourced, given time. But if everyone went around cutting out everything that's a little slenderly cited in Wikipedia about 1/2 the project would disappear!! Please feel free to bring the paragraphs here to discussion where they can be worked on, if you don't feel that "citation needed" tags in the article itself are sufficient. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote and cited the section today. The former lede was unsustainable, among its many unsubstantiated statements there is no indication that creation of parkland has had a net negative economic impact, in fact the opposite might well be true and I'm looking for a citation to indicate one way or the other. The the paragraphs introduced by an anonymous editor were also unsustainable by citation. I removed the entire former section and replaced it. I hope this solves the problem. I also added citations to the Transportation section and will continue to work on this page over time. Cheers Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local Media[edit]

An anonymous user keeps removing this: "Only two of the county's TV stations, KIEM Ch. 3 (NBC) and KEET Ch. 13 (PBS) are fully based in Eureka while KVIQ Ch. 17 (CBS), KAEF Ch. 23 (ABC), KBVU Ch. 28 (Fox), and KEUV Ch. 31 (Univision) are located near Eureka but operated from elsewhere." from the main page article. I don't know why it's causing the anon. such trouble, but I wish to put it here so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Television Stations?[edit]

The history that Eureka was once home to all 4 major national networks is gone. The fact that Eureka still has 2 stations is absent. KIEM (NBC), Channel 3 and PBS Channel 13 (KEET) are still produced and locally operating.. Obscure radio station info is present, but the last major network (NBC) and the only PBS Station north of SF is absent. It doesn't make sense. Norcalal (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese expulsion[edit]

This part doesn't begin to describe the savagery inflicted on the Chinese in Eureka. It needs considerable expansion. Nicmart (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eureka, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 21:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Eureka, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eureka, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Eureka, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eureka, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eureka, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

== NPOV ==

The Commercial Center section could use some help with NPOV. rouenpucelle (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eureka,_California&oldid=1203579101"