# Talk:Oakland California Temple

The whole section about the Loma Prieta earthquake and then the Oakland Hills fire is ludicrous. Most every building in the SF Bay Area survived the earthquake undamaged, and the Oakland Hills fire was contained about five miles or so from the temple. This section may play well with folks from out of town, but looks incredibly weak to those of us who were here for both events. This section should be removed. Bring it back when the temple survives a 7+ EQ on the Hayward Fault that runs pretty much underneath it.
Also, the Golden Gate bridge is visible on just about every day - at least on the same days that SF is visible. --Fizbin (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the info for lack of any rebuttal.--Fizbin (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in the {{fact}} template - and spent about 20 min looking for a source for this - I am guessing the letter just went out and it will be on desnews.com or lds.org soon. I note that the website for the pageant has been taken down and is a redirect to search page. --Trödel 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section "And it Came to Pass" Pageant as it is not relevant to this article.  It being close to the Temple does not make it a temple pageant.  Gh5046 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's been added back so I'm going to remove it again.  If someone can provide a reliable source that it is in fact a temple pageant, then it can be added back.  The section has been lacking citation long enough to warrant removal. Gh5046 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding this - there is no concensus to remove it - and it is related to the temple as much as all the other pageants. --Trödel 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
A consensus isn't needed when a source isn't provided within a few days of the "citation needed" tag being added.  If I don't see a source provided in the next day or so I will remove the section again.  Gh5046 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
WTF, why are you so insistent on a citation for this seciton. I am the one who added the citation needed request on the Christofferson letter in order to remind myself and others to get the reference once it is published in the Church News or Ensign. For now, I guess that the website was taken down will have to do.
google cache of history
google cashe of front page
Go find something useful to do rather than deleting text for which there is no legitimate claim that it is not factual --Trödel 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who added the citation needed tag, it only matters that it was there.  Anyone at any time (within a reasonable amount of time after the tag is added) can remove statements or sections from an article if they aren't verified.  That is the purpose of the "citation needed" tag, otherwise Wikipedia would have an awful lot of articles filled with those tags.
The only claim that it was actually a temple pageant I could find was on this article, and yes I did search for verification outside of wikipedia.  Since you provided the link to the "LDS Pageants" article (which I changed to link to a google cache of the page) as a source I'm satisfied that the content is factual.  Gh5046 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if ldslivingmagazine.com is just temporarily down or permanently, but when it comes back up I'll change the link back from the cache, that is if someone else does not get to it first.  Gh5046 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
LDSlivingmagazine is back up. Interesting view of what to do with tags. I suggest you try implementing that viewpoint across a wide variety of articles and see what kind of response you get.
To search for non-Wikipedia based verification I suggest you try adding this at the end of a google search (though they will probably work with yahoo or other search engines as well):
-wikipedia -gnu -gfdl
So a search on for this would be "And it Came to Pass" Pageant oakland -wikipedia -gnu -gfdl which returns 41 references. The best reference really is the journal since it is an independent peer-reviewed resource. However, like many good references they are not necessarily available online.
Finally, the citation request was only to Christofferson's letter, not the pageant in general because the stated source of that information was a letter with limited distribution that had not been reported widely in the press.
My point is that there are is a lot of BS in Wikipedia that should be shot on site; however, if there is a proffer from respected Wikipedians we should take that at face value and provide some time for the article to evolve to include the references, rather than threatening "Prove it or I'm deleting it." A very unhealthy and combative response, especially since there wasn't another single person who supported the deletion. Therefore, my suggestion to find something useful to do rather than stirring up animosity where there is no need to do so. --Trödel 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The only animosity here is what you have drummed up.  Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
(Yes, I know recommending that article may be perceived as inflammatory, but hopefully you don't take it that way.)
I simply removed information that wasn't cited and that I wasn't able to verify. I was wrong that it wasn't factual, sure, but keep in mind the end result was verified valuable information for the article.  Don't bury this with conceived animosity.  Gh5046 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
<---- Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, I feel you failed to assume that I was acting in good faith. First, I identified why I placed the {{fact}} tag (before you deleted the text). Second, I asserted that the pageant is related to the temple. Then you responded by removing it again (instead of discussing first) and said, "If someone can provide a reliable source that it is in fact a temple pageant..." (Bold added).
You followed response, where I admit I reacted poorly, by claiming that WP policy is any text can be removed if "a source isn't provided within a few days of the 'citation needed' tag being added" - a clear misrepresentation of policy that would only intimidate someone who hadn't been around here long. This type of impatience and discourteous behaviour is why I now average less than 100 edits per month.
Had you had some basis to challenge its veracity, or had it been in violation of the policies on living people, or had it been offensive, or silly, etc. then I would see things differently, but for a harmless assertion - that pageant is indeed a "temple pageant" you insisted on removal first then discussion.
I see acquiring resourced material for Wikipedia as very valuable (see templates and other edits from then). I'm suggesting that a "get a resource now or I'll delete again" attitude as being unhelpful. It is especially annoying when I'm the one who added the {fact} tag and your comment on the talk page doesn't address my reasoning for adding the tag. --Trödel 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to let this go bring it to my talk page.  There is no need to continue this discussion here.  Gh5046 (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This section needs a reference. While I'm not contesting any of the individual facts there, putting them all together implies that the prophecy has come true. Who is saying this? Wikipedia requires citations for claims like these. Calibas (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out the "prophecies," as they made no logical sense to begin with and are, in any case, wholly unencyclopedic.  This is Wikipedia, not a Mormon religious tract. Qworty (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hayward Fault Zone runs right under the temple. This USGS PDF explains. News reports often mention the temple as standing atop the fault.[1][2] The Northern California Geological Society published an analysis of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake showing a fault line directly under the larger auditorium building.[3] A brief mention of this is merited. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)