Talk:La Habra Heights, California

message: Not to be too pedantic, but the youtube video of the event clearly shows that Edwards was using a video camera, not a film camera, so he was not "filming" the event. He was videoing, recording the event. While video is sometimes used in the process of a making a film, that doesn't make anything shot on video a film or the make the use of the word "filming" appropriate when talking about the use of non-film cameras. I refer you to the Wikipedia definition of filmmaking found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmaking "Technically, the art and science of recording images to film differs significantly from that of recording images to video. Thus, by definition, a "filmmaker" captures images on film, and not video."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.249.196 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction in Controversy section

message: Since the controversial meeting of the La Habra Heights Improvement Association last summer, there has been some contention about the inclusion of a section in this article about that the incident at that meeting.  An anonymous user repeatedly tried to delete it or to alter it to a statement blaming it upon the cameraman who was allegedly assaulted.  On the user page for the URL of that user, the user would not engage in any dialogue about the value of bias of the section.  I took those edits as not being good faith edits.
More recently, Ben Ben has removed the section while doing some other edits, with the discription of removing non-encyclopedic information.  I take this as a good faith edit.  However, I disagree with his assertion that the Controversy Section is non-encyclopedic.  For me, the criterion is mostly that this event is something that a user of wikipedia might very well wish to look up.  Having been edited by a number of users, and containing good references, the section seemed to contain reliable information of lasting value.  Since I take Ben Ben's edit to be good faith, I will not reinsert the section without discussion here.
So, what do you think?  Does the section belong or not?  Please give rationale.  Sterrettc (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information appears to be encyclopedic in nature. It's well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view. tedder (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning this edit- I've changed my mind on it. The sources are a blog and a neighborhood council website- hardly reliable sources. Has it been covered by the Los Angeles Times or other higher-quality source? tedder (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Keep or Delete the Controversy Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on La Habra Heights, 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103002921/http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc to http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc
*Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100121052027/http://www.lasd.org/stations/for3/industry/index.html to http://www.lasd.org/stations/for3/industry/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527190101/http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phn/docs/HealthCenter/whittier.pdf to http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phn/docs/HealthCenter/whittier.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified