Talk:Garland, Texas

message: I've decided to edit some sections I've originally added and update some and eliminate any unneeded facts.
For starters, I've updated the colleges and university section to more accurately reflect Richland College's satellite campus purpose.
I've changed the title of the "Recent Developments" to City Revival, since it seems to me that those developments are more accurately described in that way. That's the way it seems to be going with Downtown and North Garland respectively. 
I've taken away Future Developments, since City Revival already seems to suggest what Future Developments would be about. If someone could offer more insight or a better title, for this section it would be great!
Also, for the economy, I think it should be noted that the Resistol Hat company be included in the article for Garland. It's an under appreciated Texas gem. I was wondering if someone could add something about that area's history during the war years. Maybe it's not relevant.
As for the old GP&L issue, I've taken away the biased facts that keep being placed in their. It should just be the bare facts. Nothing too positive or negative. I think it's better to just say that GP&L is municipally owned and does this and that along with a tidbit about its history and leave it at that.
Hopefully, these changes will make Garland's article up to par with other city articles. Pigman5 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Clean-Up of Articles

message: The GP&L issue is addressed in the Utilities section using a verifiable source (newspaper article). The selection of statements that were presented in the History section had a clear derogatory implication in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV, and was also out-of-place in the History section. -- Mainstream Nerd 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GP&L

message: It is inappropriate to delete facts without proper discussion....especially since the facts listed are supported by many verifiable sources.  The Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" policy states that articles should be written "representing fairly and without bias all significant views".  Just because you do not like the facts does not mean that verifiable facts should be deleted since they represent a different point of view.  The text in question is as follows:
As of April 2007, GPL cost data and consumer prices are not available to consumers, residents, or the general public. The city council reviews GPL data in secret meetings and does not make the data available. The Texas Public Utility Commission says GPL is unregulated. The United States Department of Energy says Texas electric utilities are unregulated by the US Government since Texas is the only state not connected to the national power grid. GPL claims to be non-profit, but they appear to be making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits that are unaccounted for. Texas Law [§402.902E] prohibits municipal electric utilities from using profits for any purpose other than to pay bonds; however, the Dallas County District Attorney's office says this law is unenforceable since the Texas Legislature did not provide any criminal or civil penalties for violation. According to the US Energy Information Administration statistics, GPL customers pay some of the highest rates for electricity in the United States.
The information and facts listed above are accurate.  If you follow the link to the GP&L web site, you can view information in prior annual reports and their claim of being a "not for profit" organization.  The article from the Dallas Morning News that you cite confirms that GP&L reports NET PROFITS that the city spends on other things.  Unaudited data for 2006 reflect a $42 million net profit.  If you follow the link to the US Department of Energy, you can view detailed spreadsheets of costs, revenue, and profits for electric energy producers in the US.  If you follow the link provided for Texas Law §402.902E, you will see that municipalities are explicitly prohibited from spending profits on anything other than to finally pay off the bonds ($119 million per 2005 GP&L Annual Report).  Please explain why you feel such facts should be deleted.
I have personally contacted and filed written complaints with the Dallas County District Attorney, Texas Attorney General, US Department of Justice, and the US Department of Energy but without meaningful resolution to the issue.  A prosecutor in the Dallas County DA's office stated that although he agrees with my complaint, they cannot prosecute since the Texas legislature failed to attach criminal or civil penalties for violations of this law.  I contacted and sent letters to Texas Representative Fred Hill and Texas Senator John Carona on this issue to correct the deficiency in Texas law.
I have been a resident of Garland for over 25 years and have no axe to grind other than stating the facts about the very high cost of electricity and GP&L "for profit" operation while claiming to be a "non-profit" entity.  I am not employed by the city nor GP&L and have no other interest in this issue.   It is my belief that these facts are useful for those who want to consider if they want to live in Garland.  This information is also posted in other web forums to inform citizens regarding these facts.
In summary, I feel strongly that this point of view should be expressed in the Wikipedia article and have restored the text to the newly created utilities section.  I do not object to moving the text from the history section.  Readers should be allowed to see the facts and draw their own conclusions based on the data presented as required by the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy.  It is my belief that Wikipedia policy is intended to require users to present only the facts and not editorial opinions or censored articles.  -- User:Telecom_eng B.Sc., M.Sc. 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GP&L Prior Facts

message: I believe this article still needs to be cleaned up. While I agree that these may be facts, I think more should be clarified. Also it should not slant so much against it that it does not offer other counter points.
Both sides should be represented equally. Also the language previously and currently had to be cleaned up. It used too much opinionated and accusatory words, such as "Secret meetings" and also some of the information seemed as if taken directly from the website, excessively in favor of promoting GP&L services.  I am not a fact check and quite frankly this discussion and the information on the GP&L were extremely wordy. An average reader would not read it. Also it was originally unorganized and I had to sub-categorize it. Even those may be unnecessarily sub-categorized.
In an article like the one previously on the Regulation issues of GP&L, I believe they should be watched for updates. Since I am not as familiar with the issue, I do not know how or what to add to it in order to keep it up to date. For an issue from 2007 where we even have a new mayor, it is outdated. For all I know, the policies may have changed.
Someone with more knowledge and ability to cut out the fat language should do so. I suppose I could try, but I'd like some guidance on this issue before we carry on with it and anymore damage is done.
Pigman5 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GP&L issues deleted

message: The facts are still current and explicit references for nearly each and every statement is provided.  This section continues to be unjustifiably deleted by employees or agents of Garland Power and Light as evidenced by the IP addresses of those making the changes.  This text and references are provided in accordance with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy.  Please do not delete facts for which you admit you have no knowledge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecom eng (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GP&L issues undeleted

message: This is another reason cause of deletion. See these other articles on Neutral Point of View regarding the article since they are relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight
Specifically this point as quoted from Jimmy Wale's paraphrase:
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is   true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.
See also: Verifiability article, specifically this point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
Using GP&L's own report as a source IS NOT a reliable source for this article in this case because it makes the article seem unduely balanced
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
   1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
   2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
   3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
   5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Another point why this article was deleted was the fact of the impartial tone. It is clearly presenting one view and seems to only be citing sources and interpreting it to support that view. An example of this would be me citing issues that argue against A furniture manufacturing company and citing the company website to argue that they provide terrible service or dishonest because they do not mention a certain fact. 
Impartial tone
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
I will seek outside assistance for editing this article, but these are my reasons for deleting the article.
Pigman5 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can be rewritten, I can rewrite some areas and remove the not sourced content Antonio López  (desu)  01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of interest for NPOV Policy Regarding GP&L

message: # Talk:GP&L Issues. Disagreement about deleting significant point of view with facts supported by reputable public sources. 23:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Third Opinion on PIGMAN5's Continued Deletion of GP&L Content

message: *"美國德州達福18市長褒獎華人新年晚會." Epoch Times
**"嘉倫市"
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese name

message: Hi.  I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure.  Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline.  I won't be changing any content, merely the order.  Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues.  I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out.  Thoughts?  Onel5969 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Garland, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110820012820/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-directory/paroledir-rgnldisparoff2.htm to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-directory/paroledir-rgnldisparoff2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Garland, Texas. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69hd5KAIE?url=http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820012820/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-directory/paroledir-rgnldisparoff2.htm to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-directory/paroledir-rgnldisparoff2.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
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) 02:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Garland, Texas. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907065933/http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/Home/Departments/Recreation+and+Cultural+Services/Garland+Arts to http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/Home/Departments/Recreation+and+Cultural+Services/Garland+Arts/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908173318/http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/Home/Departments/Recreation+and+Cultural+Services/Garland+Arts/PA4+Plaza_landing.htm to http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/Home/Departments/Recreation+and+Cultural+Services/Garland+Arts/PA4+Plaza_landing.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905063811/http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/Home/Departments/Recreation+and+Cultural+Services/Garland+Arts/PA5+Pace+House_landing.htm to http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/Home/Departments/Recreation+and+Cultural+Services/Garland+Arts/PA5+Pace+House_landing.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928085504/http://www.homes101.net/texas-schools/garland-isd-d15049/ to http://www.homes101.net/texas-schools/garland-isd-d15049/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816114423/http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node%2F194 to http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node%2F194
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) 03:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sources [2] and [6] report different death tolls for the tornado of 1927. One states 15 and the other 17, is there anything that can done about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionJordan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracy