Talk:Port Angeles, Washington

Second city

Is there any source for the second city designation? I find it really hard to believe. --Rschen7754 03:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I once asked a lady at the Clallam County Historical Society about it, this was what I was told: President Lincoln established Port Angeles and Ediz Hook as military reservations in 1862. Thus making it the second town founded by the federal government after Washington, D.C. President Lincoln was on record calling it the "second national city," but it appears undocumented if this means it would become the U.S. capitol if D.C. fell to the Confederates. Locals have grasped on to the designation as a source of pride, however. In actuality, if there was any plans for a second capitol they were likely trashed when the military reservations closed in 1891. --ColdCaffeine 17:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I think the entry should be rewritten so as not to imply it's actual fact that Port Angeles is the backup national capital. --Lukobe 04:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (just drove through P.A. today on my way home to Seattle from Forks!)

Copyedited

I removed the copyedit tag, but I believe that using the census data and talking about it past-tense is a bit odd.

Really?

The second par leads with the stunning revelation that Port Angeles was the birthplace of a footballer!! Despair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.56.38 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-organization of sections

I'm thinking that the History and Public Schools sections ought to be moved to the top, above the climate data, and the newly renamed "Crime" section should be moved to the bottom, possibly as "Controversies" or "Controversies and Crime". In any event, this re-org would bring it a little more in line with the formatting of other similar articles. besieged^talk 18:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. What about the history section? Shouldn't that be near the top? Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Spot on. besieged^talk 07:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

=== this page needs new editor=== a POV flag was just removed! whoever is in charge of this page is not at all nutreal ===controversy==== Section is still the same as the old culture and crime. Not only is it not neutral many of the facts are potentially embellished, or misrepresented, with statistical spin. The article does not report any of the many positive culture of Port Angeles ===culture and crime=== seems odd very mean spirited not neutral at all and no positive aspects which of course are many and potentially outweighs the negatives listed. it is a beautiful place, lots of middle class and upwardly mobile people a high tech community and great place to raise a family the slower pace and good schools and proximity to Seattle and Victoria make its great. other local cities don't even have a culture and crime they have a culture tab so obviously the editor here has an agenda---- This page is not neutral the controversy section is mean spirited and hateful, the positive aspects of the town are being overlooked. There is a lot of good culture. Also the facts are in question and definitely are being spun in the wrong direction. I request that either the controversy section be removed entirely or that at least the many positive aspects of the town be moved the to front. I have reason to beleive that one of the Former City council members or his friends are making these points so that seems to me it would be against Wiki policy. I am very frustrated that something is this obviously out of line is not being removed. IF NPV is so important to Wiki, why am I having so much trouble getting non neutral content removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.243.151.219 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2013

65.243.151.219 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)#

Most of it is fine, other than one sentence that I removed because it violated WP:SYNTH. Also, do not evade your block. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus, try actually reading and understanding Wikipedia's policies: e.g., "Neutral point of view" does not mean "only things that reflect well on the article subject" or "does not contain anything negative", as described in WP:YESPOV, which it is very clear you have not read. We appreciate your desire to improve the article in question, however the editing process of the article thus far is more or less fine and proceeding on-pace and as-generally-expected, in so far as the level of interest - and thus activity - for an article on such a small town would normally warrant. What is now clear, in any event, is that you have an extreme conflict-of-interest that has made maintaining a neutral-point-of-view impossible, and you should very definitely not be involved with the editing of this article in any way. For that matter, in addition to learning what Wikipedia's policies are, why they work, and how to abide by them, you also very clearly need to learn how to use the editing tools provided without mangling formatting, layout and composition every time you touch an article, because to this point your edits have been akin to an enraged hippopotamus in a porcelain factory.

Attempts to evade editing blocks or create sockpuppet accounts will be caught: the Wikipedia has a large number of tools - automated and otherwise - in addition to a large number of editors dedicated to finding and preventing vandalism and other edits that do not conform to policy. If you had, in the beginning, slowed down, tried to be more neutral and factual, had been less ham-handed in your editing efforts - for example not removing whole swathes of text and trying to replace it with clearly-forbidden promotional materials taken from self-published local-government "approved" sources - and instead of foolishly engaging in an edit-war, had taken your concerns to the article's talk page and achieved consensus, you could have been spending all this time actually improving the article instead of watching your edits be reverted over and over again, wasting your time and ours. Instead, because you did not bother to learn or follow policy, you triggered numerous protection mechanisms with your brute-force editing methods and thus the attention of others such as myself, so now you'll have to content yourself with allowing other neutral editors with no connection to the subject to correct and improve the article at their convenience, on their own time. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored, articles are not owned, and finally, the Wikipedia is comprehensive, not limited solely to material some person(s) decide reflects well on the subject. besieged^talk 20:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Port Angeles, Washington

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Port Angeles, Washington's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2020 Census (City)":

• From Chehalis, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 12, 2022.
• From Renton, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 6, 2022.
• From Auburn, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 13, 2022.
• From Olympia, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
• From Forks, Washington: "Census - Geography Profile: Forks city, Washington". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 6, 2022.
• From Bellevue, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 14, 2022.
• From Ellensburg, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
• From Spokane Valley, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
• From Ephrata, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 18, 2022.
• From Shoreline, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 11, 2022.
• From Tacoma, Washington: "Explore Census Data". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 16, 2022.
• From Montesano, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 15, 2022.
• From Vancouver, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
• From Kelso, Washington: "2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
• From Mount Vernon, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
• From Kent, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved June 14, 2022.
• From Lakewood, Washington: "Explore Census Data". Explore Census Data. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 16, 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)