Talk:Hawarden, Iowa

Recent Hispanic immigration

This section needs help, as the ending "the vast majority brood upon their hatred" will demonstrate. The edit of 7 January 2006 is depressingly POV, that is, it may reflect actual reality, but needs facts and examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shenme (talk • contribs) .

"Economic development in Hawarden is almost nonexistent, and the city is becoming increasingly dependent upon the large urban areas of Sioux City and Sioux Falls for it's survival. While many are employed within the town, as many must rely upon outside employment in the economically deprived community." - The author is expressing a personal viewpoint (or perception, in this case)as fact. To whom did the author speak to about the economic development effort? Where is the supporting data/source for the statement "as many must rely upon outside employment"?

"The number of high school graduates from the local West Sioux High School who travel great distances to escape Hawarden far exceeds the number who find happiness and reasonable employment within the town. Those who are left behind can largely be considered the victims of the failing socio-economic structure in Hawarden. The rate of college graduates who return to Hawarden is depressingly low, as is the general education level of those within the town." - again, a totally unsupported personal viewpoint. The author's personal definitions of 'happiness', 'reasonable employment' and an acceptible 'general education level' are extremely suspect and should be removed.

I believe that the reference to "the vast majority of the population brood[ing] on their hatred is oversimplified and based on an unsubstantiated personal point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.172.237.6 (talk • contribs) .

This article has existed in dispute for some time. Does the author of the disputed section wish to speak in defense of the disputed material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.172.235.133 (talk • contribs) .

Since the aforementioned passage was quoted in the Des Moines Register's front-page story about Wikipedia yesterday, removing it was probably the best way to go. --Iowahwyman 23:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, as 66.172.237.6 pointed out, its so laced with bias as to be almost impossible to salvage. 68.39.174.238 04:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What's worse, it was promptly removed, and then reverted as vandalism! ARGH 68.39.174.238 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable people

Providing a hidden notice requiring any entries to have an article on Wikipedia sounds lke it falls foul of WP:OWN to me. The notice starts "consensus reached to standardize this heading per WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline", but I see no discussion here or consensus. In any case WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline does not mention that any 'Famous or Notable people' need to comply to any such requirement. Apau98 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see - the heading is standardised according to WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Still, there is no justification for that notice. Apau98 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The notice is used as a prevention measure. Please read the 7 or so conversations as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, regarding the subject of this section (consensus was developed over time), for an understanding of why it has been placed into the code. You may also want to review Wikipedia:NOCITE. The short FYI is that although the person may be notable and therefore blue linked - the fact of how they are associated with THIS CITY examples = born, raised, residing etc. can and has been a highly contentious subject. In my time as an editor I have seen this tag {{Unreferenced section}} placed into the section. I have also seen the entire section deleted with the summary stating no references cited (neither by this editor). Another FYI - a couple of Iowa related notables Ashton Kutcher and Salvatore Giunta were "claimed" by many communities for as little of a fact that they dated a girl from . . . These types of claims can hopefully can be prevented by the use of the notice in the code.
I have not been in any edit wars, and I am not trying to own any article. My purpose of including the code (nothing in the Name space article on purpose) is to prevent people from placing names on the "list" (should be in prose style) that will be quickly deleted by those editors who like to adhere to a more strict requirement that all facts need a reference cited. And to prevent people who are notable by Wikipedia standards from being placed in the article in the first place.
--RifeIdeas Talk 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any great consensus in that discussion regarding the inclusion of a notice, hidden or otherwise. My understanding is that editors can create any content within general Wikipedia guidelines. If that content is unreferenced or in any other way inaccurate, it may be challenged/reverted by other editors. I understand your point on notability etc, but I'm still not 100% sure that providing instructions as to what editors may or may not include is the correct procedure, and I still think it may violate Wikipedia:OWN (or Wikipedia:Good faith - as noted in the discussion). What will you do if someone ignores the notice? If you revert their edits purely based on the fact that it doesn't comply to your guideline, aren't you then 'owning' the article? Apau98 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The notice has been ignored. It depends on what they ignore as to what I do. I do not revert just because of the notice - in fact I usually try to improve the content that the editor left and make it comply. If the notable person is in question (not blue linked) then I do an internet search. If I find reliable sources for their notability, I add that reference followed by ^{— reference to relationship with THIS CITY provided Need Wikipedia article} (the name of community in question is inserted to replace THIS CITY) in the article. If I do not find the notability in the internet search I then have 2 options. If the person has some recognition in the internet search or the primary editor had left a somewhat plausible reason as to their notability then I use what I call a NULLIFY option which leaves the non-notable person's name in the code and just surround it with explanation code. My last option (rarely used) is to undo or delete the edit (depending on time elapsed and I never use rollback) and state in the edit summary the reason why - usually Wikipedia:Notability but sometimes I get more specific.
If the person is notable (blue linked) and it is an issue of reference as to the relationship to the community (by far the most ignored notice issue), I try to track down an external source. This starts by following the blue link to the persons article and then using their source that establishes their relationship to the community. Unfortunately well over 50% of peoples' articles state a relationship to a community but do not have an external source to that fact. I then search the internet and find an external source but not always. When I do find an external source (about 95% of the time) I then add that source to both the person's article and to their link in the Notable people section. If I do not find an external source as to the relationship to THIS CITY, I tag it with {{Citation needed}} ^{relationship to THIS CITY}.
If it is an IP address editor I do not follow up. I patrol all Iowa communities therefore if I see the same registered editor ignoring the notice I drop a friendly "you are making my patrolling job harder by . . ." note. I have never made the claim that anyone has to follow the guideline. In fact a guideline is just that a guideline.
Since I started putting the Notice in the code, the amount of non notable, non referenced additions to the Notable people section seems to have diminished. I base this due to my patrolling of approximately 3000 Iowa communities, although I have no data to back up this "feeling". Feel free to look at Special:Contributions/Rifeideas to see my edits. Scanning my contributions you have to go back to 11:55, January 18, 2011 Ankeny, Iowa ‎to the last time I exercised an edit removing information (use of a Nullify). I encourage you to follow the history you will see me helping the IP editor who came back and reinstated the red-linked name with a reference.
Obvious vandalism is another story, and I do use rollback or undo on those edits depending on the situation.
In addressing your concerns about I still think it may violate Wikipedia:OWN (or Wikipedia:Good faith , in my opinion putting the notice in the code does not violate any policy. My actions after an edit is made would determine if I did or did not violate policy. I hope this level of explanation (and my time spent putting it together) has helped you understand my method of managing a difficult issue.
--RifeIdeas Talk 16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. As I said, I just wasn't sure. Thanks for taking the time. Apau98 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawarden, Iowa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226025501/http://www.ustravelweather.com/weather-iowa/sioux-city-weather.asp to http://www.ustravelweather.com/weather-iowa/sioux-city-weather.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

History

An economic experiment took place in the town: "In 1932, in Hawarden, Iowa, a limited amount of stamp scrip was put into circulation to pay for public works." (https://www.noemamag.com/what-if-money-expired/?sponsored=0&position=5&category=fascinating_stories&scheduled_corpus_item_id=3ab91f8d-86f8-456a-85c0-6d7f33fdf289&url=https://www.noemamag.com/what-if-money-expired; https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2008/ec-20080401-stamp-scrip-money-people-paid-to-use; The Annals of Iowa Volume 71 | Number 1 (Winter 2012) pps. 1-38 Iowa Stamp Scrip: Economic Experimentation in Iowa Communities during the Great Depression Jonathan Warner; "Hawarden...How It All Began -- Scrip Money Brings Fame to Hawarden" by Mary Truesdell Johnson: https://hawardenhistoricalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Chapter-45-Scrip-Money-Brings-Fame-to-Hawarden1.pdf). This should be included in the history section. Kdammers (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)