Talk:Holy Land USA

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

Simpsons Inspiration?[edit]

Was Holy Land part of the inspiration for the Simpson's episode I'm Goin' to Praiseland where Flanders makes a Christian theme park? Zidel333 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking. freshacconci talktalk 02:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news[edit]

The section "Recent news" is the subject of a minor edit war. I'll reproduce it here and the merits can be debated. The question is should it be included in the article, or is it not relevant to the subject?

The text in question reads as follows:

Recent news
*On July 15, 2010, Chloe Monique Ottman was raped, strangled and stabbed to death at Holy Land by Francisco Cruz, whom has confessed to the crime.

It was referenced with this news article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, I am not the IP who reverted the edits. I noticed the edit war and think this is the right place to resolve it. I have posted an invitation to participate on both parties' talk pages. I will participate in the discussion, but will give others a chance to go first. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an event which occured at the location in question and was reported by a reliable third party source. It is not the focus of the article as currently added (as a prior editor had made it). Arguments of "murders happen every day" is spurious -- verifiable events are encouraged to be added to wikipedia articles. Markvs88 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove: You forgot a part of my sentence that murders happen everyday AT specific areas and locations.... I guess my point is that the murder could have happened anywhere, why is its location relevant? New Haven is a city in CT, New Haven is a specific location, so should we start citing every murder that happens there? The incident is irrelevant to the location, and I just don't feel it is appropriate to keep there. What does the suggested material do for the article? What does this one isolated incident have to do with the location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.123.116 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget, I just think it is a spurious arguement. By that logic, we can delete the Holy Land USA page, since it's no longer noteworthy -- it's just a derelict lot! In point of fact, the incident is hardly irrelevant -- it has been widely reported and is probably a reason why someone would actually look the place up on Wikipedia in the first place. It doesn't matter that it's an "isolated incident" -- it fits all the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and other articles *do* mention deaths... such as Lake Compounce and crime Stamford, Connecticut. Bad things happen sometimes. If you want such a small point to be less important, how about actually improving the article? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the entire article? Holy Land USA was and still is a landmark, in fact there are talks of reviving it so no.... were not removing the entire article. There might be generalized lists about crimes, but I highly doubt Stamford CT lists every conviction and incident on their page, that would be a list a mile long... and to be blunt, no one is going to be looking up some random girl's death on wikipedia months after the fact... just let it go, it doesn't belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.183 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remvoing the article was sarcasm to show how absurd censorship is. No, because no one has bothered to document them all. If you feel like doing it, I applaud you and say go for it! I've done some death in the Lake Zoar and Pequonnock River articles myself. And who are you to judge why someone would look up a page? Please, it's painfully obvious you're both Kjc591 and Monopoly3. I formally accuse you of sock puppetry and also believe you may be involved with Holy Land USA, and therefore are also afoul of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Markvs88 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am in no way shape or form committing sock puppetry... and involved with holy land usa? Hardly, I work at a home depot... kjc591 (talk)

First off... I am neither of those two, I have no username, secondly, if you are going to be so ridiculous with your points and snide remarks, then I withdrawn from my original discussion. Lastly, I formerly accuse you of having no life. I can't speak for the others here, but if you do re add the material to the article, I will continue to remove and state my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.183 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ^ kjc591 (talk)

  • remove I have to agree with the ip user, furthermore, if I decided to strip myself bare naked and run across Holy Land USA and got the attention of news thus creating "a reliable third party source," (because indecent exposure is a crime) would I be able to post that here too? Or are we biasing our opinions because it's a murder of a 16 year old girl, and that seems somehow "groundbreaking?" Don't taint this article of a once successful area of fun with as the above user said, an isolated unfortunate incident. Kjc591 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove Yeah... idk, it doesn't seem important enough to impact the place itself. I vote no. Monopoly3 (talk)
  • Comment I'm a bit concerned about the emergence of several brand new users whose first edits are to this discussion. I have requested a sock puppetry investigation to see if the same person is using multiple accounts inappropriately. If this is not the case, I apologise in advance. This discussion should have been a very simple matter to resolve, but this has suddenly made it a lot more complex, unfortunately. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeterproject, you and I both know it'll come back true. This has been obvious bad faith. I request that at the very least the point is restored with a disputed tag. Markvs88 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even had a chance to comment! :) Perhaps we should show an example in good faith and wait just a few days to see if anything comes of the SP investigation? It is possible that it is a coincidence and that at least one of the above is an independent observer. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If something comes of it, he's blocked anyway and the disputed tag can come off. If not, then take into consideration that none of the alleged sock puppets have made a valid arguement to remove a cited, verifiable point of no undue weight and is NPOV. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its nice that you can speak for other people bub, and it's nice to know that I am accused of being a furry sock puppet, but the bottom line is that everything you are saying is your opinion and nothing else.. I can't be sure the other 2 aren't trolling, but I know I am not... so get off it.... "best" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.183 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for what other people? I find it highly suspicious (as does Wikipeterproject) that two new accounts and another IP (with no other edits... ever... except for this article yesterday) are involved. And I didn't put the SP trace on you, which I notice you haven't bothered defending yourself on. Opinion? I'm the one standing for a cited fact, you're the one saying "I don't like it". Markvs88 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipeterproject, you and I both know it'll come back true," but it won't because as KJC as established, we are not the same person. Actually I did defend it if you read a few lines up, I clearly say I am neither of the other posters, however, I won't be defending that position any further as it is entirely unfounded. Good for you, stand for a cited fact, it doesn't make it any more relevant to Holy Land USA.

  • For the sake of maybe resolving this discussion, could I propose that the murder be mentioned in the context of renewed interest in the site and the discussion it has started about what to do with it? This Wall Street Journal article might be a good source for that. This proposal would allow us to mention the murder, but in the context of a discussion about the actual subject - the former theme park itself, its currect state of disrepair and its possible future. Without such context, I think that the section, as it stood, may have breached WP:NOTNEWS, which points out that just because something can be verified, it does not mean it is suitable for inclusion, and provides specific guidance on the treatment of news reports. I am suggesting that my proposed solution can use this news to expand the article by making it relevant to the article's subject matter. What do you think? If 69.177.26.183 and Markvs88 agree, I'll even have a go at putting some words together myself! Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other theme parks have their "incidents" mentioned, why not Holy Land USA? It's a tidbit. Tidbits are good. -Etoile (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Etoile. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeterproject, I'm fine with your suggestion but point out that it's another source for the same news, and that the Hartford Courant is also a paper of record. The story was reported on a variety of news outlets besides the Wall Street Journal, including The Huffington Post[[1]], CBS News[[2]], Salon.Com[[3]], and even the Taipei Times [[4]]. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been accused of sock Puppetry? Just because I share an opinion with someone doesn't mean I am that person, or are you so insecure that you don't have anyone to back you up? Anyway I question the comparison of reported incidents at operational parks, because it's entirely different. Lake compounce is a WORKING amusement park, which means any incidents that happen occur under the watch of the operators. This former attraction is closed down to the public, therefore no one was really responsible for what occurred there besides the idiots who trespassed. Furthermore, as stated by others, it is irrelevant to Holy Land USA in it's own right. kjc591 (talk)

It just seems suspicious when a whole group of new editors, who have made no other contributions to Wikipedia, suddenly start commenting on a matter. If the SP investigation shows that this isn't a case of SP, I will be the first to apologise, but in the circumstances, I think it is worth checking. Do you have any comments on my proposal? Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out then, I have nothing to hide, I wanted to contribute to the discussion, so I made an account and commented. Anyway I am fine with that proposal under the grounds that the section make clear the two were trespassing, and that no persons associated with holy land usa were held accountable for what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjc591 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposal, I stand by my opposition to keep irrelevance off of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.183 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account all of the above, I have inserted a reworded paragraph into the article. I have tried to word it so that it is relevant to the subject and both sources I used include significant discussion about the park's current issues and possible future use. In other words, I have tried to reference the event (which 69.177.26.183 has argued is not relevant to the subject, since the article is about the site and not about the crime) as being a trigger for wider discussion in the media and elsewhere about the site itself. The sources do exactly that, they quote local people, police etc discussing the issues around the site - not just the issues around the current event. Hopefully 69.177.26.183 will agree that this discussion and interest is relevant to the subject. Finally, although Kjc591 requested that the wording should state that the victim and accused were trespassing and that nobody associated with the park was held responsible, I couldn't find a reference that actually stated that, so including it would breach Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. One source did talk about trespassing generally, which is releavnt to the subject - the park is in disrepair and trespassing has been a problem (but apparantely is less so these days). Hopefully this edit will satisfy everyone's concerns. It can, like anything else in Wikipedia, be editted, but I would urge collaboration and discussion rather than reversion to edit-warring if you don't agree with it. There will, quite probably, be more news about the site itself, as a result of this event and I think that ongoing community discussion and ultimately decisions about what happens to the site should be included in the article. What happens next in the crime investigation is not relevant to the article - I think the relevant bit is that the murder has triggered discussion about the subject and that is what I tried to say. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Users 69.177.26.183, 69.37.123.116, Kjc591 and Monopoly3 all had their accounts suspended because of sock puppetry in relation to contributions to this debate. Although this doesn't invalidate the user's arguments, it does mean that we ought to assume that all the contributions are coming from a single source. I would argue that this source is also advocating a cause and not necessarily acting objectively. Note also above that that 69.177.26.183 opted out of the discussion, which further erodes any claim of consensus for a total remove argument by this user (as per comments in his/her resumed edit war). Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisted[edit]

I invoke a new consensus, and I believe this content should be removed. It is useless to the article, and out of respect of this girl's family I would remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.198 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:sockpuppet. This is the same editor (69.177.26.183, 69.37.123.116, Kjc591 and Monopoly3 ) again. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached. Unless other established editors want to weigh in, I'd say the issue is closed. We don't edit "out of respect" whatever that means. Major news outlets covered this story. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we include what other reliable sources have covered. freshacconci talktalk 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Great, so then I reccomend a new concensus to keep the material added to the death 2 days ago, elaborating on the story. Freshacconci has argued that the information was unnessesary, but then I question why it is ok for high profile figure assassinations to have details on their untimely deaths, and not for an average citizen? According to Markvs88, anything can be contributed as long as it has a sood source.... well my information happens to come from the same exact sources which makes it good information. If it is going to be removed to make an example of me, well then you better believe I am going to fight it. I don't take hypocrisy lightly. The information is good, and should be allowed, and to be honest Freshacconci, I don't really care if you think it is nessesary information. That is your opinion.Best 149.152.191.2 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit to editing to prove a point and you admit to evading a block. No, your opinion is going to count for very little here. Your "wish" to include this new information is based only — and you've admitted as much — on trying to make a point and not on the actual value of the new information. It's spurious and will be treated as such. The information you are trying to add is gratuitous and adds nothing of value. Yes, that's my opinion, and it's based on Wiki guidelines. By your own admission, your insistence on adding this new text is based on bad faith editing and to be disruptive. Consensus was reached on the original text and so far you are the only one who wants this additional information. You can move around from IP to IP all you want, that won't change anything. freshacconci talktalk 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed. The editor exhibits nothing but bad faith and does not have the right to call for a "new concensus". Markvs88 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened.Absolutely not, these edits are to provide as much detailed info to the reader as possible. Don't mistake my actions. Have some good faith. 69.37.97.81 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: You're a wp:sockpuppet, and by wp:block should be permanently banned. You have no right to good faith as it's something you've never displayed here in the first place. This is my final note to you. This topic is closed. Markvs88 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am not sure what you are referring to, but since you claim this is your final note, then you have opted out of this discussion. Best 69.177.23.140 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing disruptive edits[edit]

There is lots of Wikipedia policy to support the article as it is written and there is no need to expand the description of the 2010 crime. The IP, if serious about the debate should show good faith by researching WP policy and presenting the case in tems of that policy. Respect for the victims's family is not relevant as such and persistent accusations of "hypocrisy" have nothing to do with it at all. The claim that you can contribute anything that can be sourced is also completely wrong. Contributions should be encyclopedic, relevant to the article's subject, not trivial, not given undue weight, etc. I see no reason to expand on the reference to the murder as it stands and threats to continue an edit war merely demonstrate bad faith and a lack of respect for Wikipedia's policies and is, therefore, disruptive editing. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a problem with a small time table... since it's probably the only reason anyone would bother visiting this article in the 1st place. I didn't think it was adding too much weight. 69.37.240.18 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeterproject: Same sockpuppet back at it... adsl.snet.net. Per WP:DUCK, he's just going to keep at it unti the article gets locked again. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP69.37.240.18: I don't know how you can determine the motives of readers of this article, and that's not relevant anyway. The article is about the now-defunct park, not the murder. The murder is only relevant to the article insomuch as it impacted on the park, and the way it is worded serves that purpose. If you believe that the crime is notable enough in its own right, you can always start a separate article but I suspect, however, that you will have significant difficulty in establishing an argument that the murder, however sad, was notable. I think we should close this discussion and just leave the article as is. It becomes tedious when you persist with an edit war and engage in sockpuppetry. Time to move on, I think. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, did the murder really impact the park? If the murder is not notable, then how does it impact anything? If it really renewed interest in the park, why isn't anyone talking about it now? Going by that logic, it would seem every person's murder at any noted location on wikipedia should be cited simply because it happened there. I am not going to continue the edit war, but the fact is the murder being there as a whole is added weight, and should never have been added in the first place. But ok, consensus was reached, you win. 69.37.123.37 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Death?[edit]

Hi, wondering why the Holy Land Article has to include a death that isn't exactly notable? I just read the argument above... I understand the wanting to add info... but honestly we're talking about a private citizen, killed over 2 years ago... no one is talking about it anymore, is this really noteworthy enough to be a part of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.191.2 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It brought the park to national attention and re-opened the debate about what to do with the site, which is reflected in the section about the crime. Wikipeterproject (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven Independent article[edit]

Artist Finds Holiness In The Ruins -- Error (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Land_USA&oldid=1219025907"