Talk:Virginia Beach, Virginia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sports and The Lack of Actual Facts

A number of contributers continue to state opininated reasons, rather than facts, about why the Hampton Roads region does not have any major league sports teams.

The region's population of over 1.6 million is often stated as being too small, yet there are 11 smaller metro areas with major league teams (some of which have two teams!):

  • Buffalo (NFL Bills and NHL Sabres)
  • Charlotte (NFL Panthers and NBA Bobcats)
  • Green Bay (NFL Packers)
  • Indianapolis (NFL Colts and NBA Pacers)
  • Jacksonville (NFL Jaguars)
  • Memphis (NBA Grizzlies)
  • Milwaukee (MLB Brewers and NBA Bucks)
  • Nashville (NFL Titans and NHL Predators)
  • New Orleans (NFL Saints and NBA Hornets)
  • Raleigh (NHL Hurricanes)
  • Salt Lake City (NBA Jazz)

Corporate support is noted as being non-existent, yet the MLB Expos relocation effort garnered over 120 commitments for suites and Smithfield Foods signed on as the corporate naming rights sponsor for the proposed NBA Hornets arena in downtown Norfolk (Smithfield Foods Center).

Traffic is often cited as a reason as well, yet there are no studies to indicate one way or the other the effect that the roads, tunnels, bridges, and parking would have on attendance at major league sporting events.

Additionally, the NHL Rhinos campaign reached over 7500 commitments for individual season tickets in a three-week period and the Expos campaign received almost 11,000 commitments.

Please leave out opinions when writing why the Hampton Roads region does not have a major league team. And please leave it out of the Virginia Beach section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.20.194 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Photo Requests

The article is a bit lacking in the photography department. A good photo to include in the Parks and Outdoor Recreation section would be of either Mt. Trashmore or the Boardwalk. A photo of one of the golf courses would be good to add to the Sports section, as well. Dr. Cash 15:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I can provide some photos of Va Beach... Boardwalk, Trashmore, and also some general cityscape photos... the Boulevard, Ft. Story, etc. Will try to upload them by 2005-w1-7. --UED77 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really so hard to have a sunny picture of the oceanfront here?

-Please add a photo with palmetto palm trees if possible to highlight Virginia Beach's humid subtropical climate (even if they're in the background, that would be cool.). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.128 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Greekfest 1989

The Virginian-Pilot June 11, 2004: "The encyclopedia's descriptions of other South Hampton Roads cities includes information on the 1989 Virginia Beach Greekfest riot.

Even that description is debatable.

"Many people predicted a riot weeks in advance, and this came to pass," according to the encyclopedia. "Unbiased observers suggest that the city went out of its way to make the students feel unwelcome; that the students rioted not out of anger, but out of a simple greed for the clothing displayed in the shops along the boardwalk; and that the police were out of control, attacking anyone who was black, looter or not."

The article seems to me to be fairly balanced about the 1989 Greekfest incident. The basis for the conflict had been growing for several years and apparently no plans were explored to reduce rather than increase the potential for a riot, although there had been basically a small one the previous year.

In the past, and often when any groups of students hit the beach, there are many who do not have lodging of their own. This time, more that the customary number of property-owners took measures such as requiring proof of room registrations to get past their lobbies, and the city refused to allow rental of public facilities, all of which exacerbated the bigger problem of lots of people with no place to go (peaceful or not). It's hard not to draw the analogy to frequent hurricane preparations in the area: No one can keep it from happening or minimize it, and board up and just brace yourselves, folks.

In fairness , there was plenty of fault on the student side of the issue as well. Leaders of the youth groups apparently did little (if anything) to avoid what at least some of these highly-educated individuals must have seen was a gathering on a collision course with the community. They were well-aware that community leaders were fearful, and logically were also aware that these public officials have police powers and responsibilities.

It's too bad it took a mini-version of war and a lot of damage and injuries for at least some to figure out that everyone loses in a calamity like this. It had been over 20 years since mobs had rioted in Virginia (when Dr. King was assassinated). It's hard to say how far this ugly incident set back widespread public opinion of Virginia Beach, police, the National Guards, African Americans, and college students in the minds of many. Undoubtedly, race relations and tolerance each took a hit, at least initially. We can hope that 15 years has provided adequate time for reflection should such a storm be as clearly forecast again.

Anyone who can suggest a better presentation than we have should at least discuss it here on the Talk page if you don't want to edit the article. Vaoverland 01:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Two questions about factual content

Two statements in this article concerned me.

One would be in the "Cityscape" section, where the author states that "most of the southern half of the city is occupied by the Great Dismal Swamp." That is blatantly false -- while the southern half of Virginia Beach is less developed than the northern, most of the southern land is taken up by agriculture, not swamps. The Virginian portion of the Great Dismal Swamp is contained mostly within Suffolk and Chesapeake, several miles to the west of the Va. Beach border.

Most ppl mistake the Back Bay and International Coastal Ways as being part of the swamp. The Refuge for the Swamp has no part within Va Beach. Good catch. Here is there brochure for reference:page 6 --Terry 14:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And under "Sports," the author asserts that there are two major golf courses in Virginia Beach. It should probably be noted that there are at least 10 public courses (I'll check the facts and change this tomorrow) in addition to two or three country clubs. Also, no list of "major" courses in the area would be complete without mentioning the TPC of Virginia Beach, which plays host to a Nationwide Tour event each year and is by far the most expensive public course in the city.

I will make these changes tomorrow when I get the chance.

- Chris 05:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Communities

This section was added by an anonymous user and I personally think it should be removed as there is zero information provided by it. The only item linked points to an article that only says it is a community in virginia beach. Very sub-par.

If we do want this, I suggest we move it as a sub-heading under another header and that only add communities that content is provided for or currently exists. Also, if we leave this list as is, it isnt complete and we will end up seeing a list of 100+ communities with nothing posted about them.

The information should be merged into the Geography & Climate: Cityscape section. Some communities (or neighborhoods) are already mentioned there. Wiki-links should not be provided unless the particular neighborhood already has a wiki-page, though a brief mention of the neighborhood is appropriate. Dr. Cash 14:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

NAB Little Creek

Terrybader said, "Little Creek is actaully in Norfolk, VA".
But globalsecurity.org says, "The Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, the largest base of its kind in the world, ... is sited at the extreme northwest corner of Virginia Beach." And http://topozone.com/map.asp?... seems to confirm this.
—wwoods 17:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • interesting; I know for a fact is considered part of Norfolk. I was stationed there and our address was Norfolk, VA.
    • Funny though, they have an address with Virginia Beach, VA on their home page [1] but resolution on any mapping service

(Google, Yahoo, Mapquest) it resolves to 2600 Tarawa Court, Norfolk, Va and there is no Tarawa Court in Virginia Beach.

    • themilitaryzone.com has a mailing address of NAB Little Creek, Norfolk, VA 23521-3229
    • USPS using the 23521 says that it is associated with Norfolk, VA and NABLC which says to use the Norfolk listing. Since USPS is the Zip Code provider, I would say this is the number one option to determine municipiality (sp?)
    • Another piece: According to Mapquest [2] If you look at the City lines, it clearly shows it on the Virginia Beach side, but yet the address clearly says Norfolk, VA.
    • http://gis.norfolk.gov/ Only highlights 1/2 of the real estate that is Little Creek as being Norfolk. However I have also found that address on the unhighlighted portions have Norfolk, VA (ie. the Commisary on Ambphibious Dr, Norfolk, VA)
    • www.vbgov.com shows all Little Creek as being within Virginia Beach.
    • http://factfinder.census.gov seems to show it as on VaBeach land.
I will continue to get a definitive answer though... ...and the answer is...

how the hell do we decide if it is in a city or not, addesses all say Norfolk, Va some maps show as it being split and others show it as VaBeach. The 2 government sites contradict each other USPS says the zip is Norfolk but that area seems to fall under VaBeach for demographics.

Trying to put a NPOV here but I think we might as well put a VaB POV on it for location wise and reword the paragraph.

--Terry 18:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe for some reason the base's mail goes through a post office, and therefore zip code, in Norfolk?
—wwoods 23:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to help address the confusion (or add to it?): The line was moved following a landswap between Norfolk and Virginia Beach involving part of the area north of the base now known as East Ocean View within the past 30 years. Some maps may still show this area as Virginia Beach, or even Princess Anne County. Norfolk Public Library website has information to verify this. Mark in the Historic Triangle Vaoverland 01:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Funny. I guess this is our great federal government at its finest! LOL! Having lived in the Hampton Roads area for about 6 years or so in the early 90s, I've always thought that Little Creek was in Norfolk, as most of the people you'd talk to at the time considered it in Norfolk, yet close to the border. And the USPS definitely supports that argument. But if the base website seems to think that they're in Va. Beach, well, maybe they are. Or perhaps, more realistically, the base was built in land donated by both Norfolk & Va. Beach, so it's really in both cities.
Either way, does it really matter? The base is a military installation, and the operation of such is under the jurisdiction of the US Navy. Neither Norfolk nor Va. Beach have control or jurisdiction over the land, and do not derive any taxes from it either. So it sounds to me more like bragging rights,... Also, if you look at many cities in the country, there are a lot of adjacent suburbs which technically operate as a separate government, but when mailing to them, their address is still in the city itself. An example would be some of the suburbs adjacent to St. Louis, MO. There's a lot of businesses in nearby St. Louis County, which is adjacent, but not the city itself. However, many of the businesses in the suburbs still maintain the St. Louis, MO address, because the city is the larger entity and it makes more business sense for them to be associated with the larger city. I believe Circuit City falls into this category in Richmond as well (they are actually based in Glen Allen, in Henrico County, but maintain that they are located in Richmond, Va., since that's the central city). Of course, this argument is probably shot to hell in the decentralized conglomeration of cities in Hampton Roads, with several cities all vying for that principal role as the central city,... Dr. Cash 16:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Todd Grissom sayeth, "Okay, sorry if I posted in the wrong place, won't be the first and won't be the last time either. I work for the City of Virginia Beach, actuatually for the Virginia Beach Center for GIS. You can verify via tgrissom@vbgov.com or cvbgis@vbgov.com. Little Creek is in VB in its entirety. The land swap is the truth, just a little cleanup up of a long standing border dispute. Physical location is not decided by the democratic process and the USPS is non-authoritative on the issue. The best place to get the answers if you do not want to take my word forit, which based on the controversy you won't want to do is check with the base and the two localities in question; CVB: assessor@vbgov.com or (757) 427-4601, Norfolk: real.estate@norfolk.gov or 757-664-4732, Little Creek: Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek Public Affairs Office at (757) 462-8423. Also, someone previously made the claim that the City of Norfolk Web Mapping application displays Little Creek within the City of Norfolk. If the Norfolk web site (http://gis.norfolk.gov/website/htmlviewer/genmap/viewer.htm) is checked I think you will find that this isn't true. Everything east and southwest of the inlet (the base area) is displayed distinctly as not Norfolk. The City of Virginia Beach does provide Fire and Emergency Medical support to NAB Little Creek. If you search the VB emapping application (http://vbgov.com/e-gov/emapping/access/default.asp?searchComplexity=advanced) for Street Segments begining with LC you will see a full listing of street address ranges on the base. Further, its more than political bragging, it federal dollars to local schools and roads, not to mention the land reverts if the base is ever vacated. I will also note that the CGIS website has a border error on it. It improperly displays the East Ocean View segment as still being within the CVB boundary, which is part ofthe Little Creek land swap, we'll get that fixed."
Todd Grissom

Populations over the last 10 Years

  • 1995: 397,049
  • 1996: 400,792
  • 1997: 404,678
  • 1998: 431,000
  • 1999: 429,617
  • 2000: 425,298
  • 2001: 424,295
  • 2002: 427,648
  • 2003: 421,051
  • 2004: 434,994
  • 2005: 440,098

Apparently, and anonymous user added this information. Where did this data come from? There's no source to it. Anyway, I've removed it from the main page and listed it here. It didn't seem to go in it's own major category heading. There's already a table listing historical populations under the demographics subheading, so it would probably be better adding it to that table. Although I'm not too happy with the table under demographics (right-hand column); it seems a bit long to be there. What about moving the table to its own page, something like, "Historical Populations of Virginia Beach", or something like that, and listing it there? Dr. Cash 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Cursing ban

I reverted an inaccurate edit about Virginia Beach and a supposdely unique ban profanity in public. The source cited provides the applicable State Code section 18.2-388, not a city code. This is an old law (like many on the books). It doen't appear the legislature had made any changes since at least 1990, but the law predates that substanially.

From Code of Virginia:

§ 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public; penalty; transportation of public inebriates to detoxification center.

If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-237; 1960, c. 358; 1964, c. 434; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1979, c. 654; 1982, c. 666; 1983, c. 187; 1990, c. 965.)


Vaoverland 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Tech also operates a satellite campus in Virginia Beach. I added this.


Note: I have been to Virginia beach many times, and there are signs along the street saying that it is illegal to use profane language in public.

Largest Suburban Cities

Please cite Claim for being 3rd largest suburban city in the United States. Also what would define Virginia Beach as a Suburb and what would it be a suburb of. If it is a twin cities situation much the same as Dallas Fort Worth or Minneapolis St. Paul it should not be considered a suburb unless you would like to consider Fort Worth (with a population of 535,000) a suburb of Dallas. - Bfjksig201 3/1/2006 1720 cst

The Suburb article on wikipedia lists the largest suburbs in North America as: The five largest suburbs in North America, in order, are Mississauga, Ontario; Long Beach, California; Mesa, Arizona; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Surrey, British Columbia; and Laval, Quebec. So Virginia Beach would be fourth, after Mesa, Arizona. Though this article does state any reference for that information, either. Dr. Cash 16:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Beach is very close to Norfolk long considered the economic engine that drove this part of VA, when it merged with the county it's population past Norfolk's population thus the suburb of Norfolk became the larger city. Since Virginia City does not drive the economic area like Norfolk does, it is a suburb of Norfolk despite it's greater population, which only comes from the fact it annexed an entire county.

VirginiabeachLive

WWW.VIRGINIABEACHLIVE is a great resource for travelers interested in gaining information on the area. We have an expert message board that allows visitors to ask VB-related questions. Extensive listings include attractions, events, dining, and online hotel reservations.

Wikipedia is not a site for advertising. Do not linkspam Wikipedia. Pollinator 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

216.54.110.130 13:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC) melanie.scott@goldkeyresorts.com

Points of interest

This section seems somewhat redundant, since so many are already described in other sections. Comments? Vaoverland 22:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It does seem redundant. A catagory called Virginia Beach already exists. --Starionwolf 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

History section: Getting a bit long?

The history section appears to be getting a little long, particularly the section dealing with the GreekFest riots. Does anyone think it might be time to create a separate History of Virginia Beach article and shorten this section a bit? Dr. Cash 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the history as a whole is overlong, and I think it's appropriate here rather than split out. However, the GreekFest section has grown long and it probably belongs in a separate article. Lord Bodak 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. How about a separate article just about GreekFest? Vaoverland 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a separate GreekFest riots article would be good. Not sure what exactly to call it, though. Dr. Cash 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On that note, I think that any GreekFest riots article would need some cleanup and. Right now parts of it kind of reads like a middle school term paper.--Pythagras 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Move Greekfest 1989?

Seems that Greekfest 1989 deserves it own article, while a significant amount of the Virginia Beach article is focused on this event. Perhaps that section should get its own article, with a limited overview on the VB article.

Probably a good idea. Better yet, the entire 'history' section probably should go into creating a History of Virginia Beach article, as is commonly done with many other city articles. Dr. Cash 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved and cleaned up I-64 location information

I-64 is located INSIDE not OUTSIDE the westernmost boundary of Virginia Beach. The area of College Park (which straddles the Virginia Beach/Chesapeake city border) is the largest area of Virginia Beach "Inside the beltway" because of that (I know... I grew up in that part of Virginia Beach and lived there from 1968-1992; even graduated from Kempsville High School with Mr. Grissom, who spoke up about the location of Little Creek). Woodstock is also in that part of the city. Military Highway (US-13) also enters Virginia Beach in that small section of the city. 207.132.147.88 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)William Ward 12/12/06

Immigration Criticisms section should probably be removed

"Several laws are in place to protect illegal immigrants who provide cheap labor to help the tourism industry in Virginia Beach."

This line is not supported by any citation and is patently false. There are no laws in place to protect illegal immigrants. The "Several laws" that this line refers to is a 2005 policy instituted by the Virginia Beach Chief of Police which said that if someone was charged with a misdemeanor, they would not be asked their immigration status. This policy was instituted in 2005 and in 2006 the Congressional Research Service issued a report entitled, "Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement"[3] In CRS-26, 32 cities are named that have active sanctuary policies and Virginia Beach was not one of them. The difference being that the Virginia Beach policy restricts the officer from asking the status of the person however there is no attempt to circumvent or outright ignore requirements to report illegals to the INS.

There is also no citation here supporting the claim that illegal immigrants in Virginia beach provide "cheap labor to help the tourism industry." This is a smaller concern but it is a spring/summer tourist season and the industry seems to be more supported by high school and college students. If there is a high number of illegals there it is more probable that they are involved in agricultural work, landscaping, construction, etc...

"It has been called a sanctuary town by many people for the fact that criminals can not be asked about their immigration status, meaning that even after several arrests, the local government will never report illegal immigrants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

This line is also misleading. Following the Chief of Police's policy criminals won't be asked their status if they are charged with a misdemeaner, however if they are charged with a felony their status can be questioned. The second half however is false. The local government can and does report illegal immigrants. The policy that the author is alluding to is only about questioning status not reporting illegals. If Virginia Beach had any active policies barring the reporting of illegals then the city certainly would have been listed in the above referenced CRS report as a sanctuary city.

"This has lead to a large uprising recently as an illegal immigrant with three prior arrests killed two teenage girls while driving drunk.[8]"

The cited source doesn't mention any "large uprising." It refers only to Bill O'Reilly. While Bill certainly did a good job of being outraged, he does not constitute a "large uprising" as the author so states. The way it is worded as well makes it sound as though his three prior arrests all happened in Virginia Beach. I haven't found any sources citing in which city 2 of the 3 crimes occurred however this illegals previous DUI happened in a different city. The penalty in that DUI was ridiculously light, however I checked the wikipedia article for that city and there was no mention of it being a sanctuary city for drunk drivers.

"After the deaths of the two girls Virginia Beach came under heavy national attention and scrutiny by the Fox News program The O'Reilly Factor. Bill O'Reilly criticized the mayor and chief of police for being too lax on illegal immigrants and therefore not protecting the residents of the city. [9]"

These may be the only 2 true sentences in the section. All of the "large uprising" and national attention directed to this event has been created by Bill O'Reilly. The authors 2 citations lead back to Bill O'Reilly. According to the CRS and Bill O'Reilly's own website Virginia Beach doesn't qualify as a sanctuary city. The article written by Bill O'Reilly that is used as citation [9] is factually erroneous itself. O'Reilly should be considered a rather dubious source as well since he has said several times that his show is not a news show but rather a news opinion or news analysis show, so it's questionable if he has actually researched any of the claims he makes.

Given that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about a city, it doesn't seem logical to include a reference to 1 drunk driving accident that has been politicized by a tv talk show pundit whose contribution to the "debate" and "criticism" of Virginia Beach City officials is that the mayor "should be baking pies, not running a major city", and that she "is, with all due respect -- I'm trying not to be insulting here -- limited in her intellectual capacity" and that the police chief is "an arrogant incompetent."

The irony is that there are several cities that actively identify themselves as Sanctuary Cities for various reasons. 2 of these cities are Cambridge Massachusetts and Takoma Park Maryland...There are absolutely no references to illegal immigration on either of their wikipedia pages.

Bill O'Reilly has every right to be outraged and talk about this event on his TV show, radio show and website all he pleases, but that does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.160.112 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Massive Resistance

The following text was removed from article because of non-sourcing and WP:POV concerns.

deleted text follows:

"The decision to consolidate Princess Anne County and Virginia Beach came about during the period of Massive Resistance which defined not only school integration schemes but also divided communities across Hampton Roads.

"The City of Norfolk attempted to annex land from Princess Anne County to better integrate its school system however the citizens of the county resisted annexation. Citizens in Princess Anne County, like their counterparts in other surrounding counties, could devise no better way to stay segregated than to incorporate as independent cities. The result was essentially a "black out" in what used to be Princess Anne County as well as other Hampton Roads counties like Nansemond, which became Suffolk, and Norfolk County which became Chesapeake. [citation needed]"

rationale:

I posted the fact flag 60 days ago; no response. I have searched myself and can find no published source, but I did find conflicting information. Do we have a source for these statements? The political consolidation issues were many faceted, and this may have been one aspect in some situations. Even so, the Nansemond-Suffolk situation as stated certainly wasn't motivated by such in any case, occuring many years later and not even involving Norfolk at all.

It is an undisputed fact that, for whatever motivations, the City of Norfolk expanded and annexed its neighbors at what anyone would consider an astounding rate, and this sent three of the four jurisdictions running for cover. The final annexation attempt against Norfolk County before the consolidations would have completely surrounded the City of South Norfolk. The author of at least one detailed book claims to have looked for and failed to find racial motivation as a major factor behind any of the many changes in Hampton Roads between 1952 and 1976.

Source: Temple, David G. Merger Politics: Local Government Consolidation in Tidewater Virginia (1972), University Press of Virginia; Charlottesville, Virginia

This is not to say that Massive Resistance was not a factor in the area which had a profound impact upon the public schools and race relations; merely that, in this article, we cannot make such broad, unsourced, and questionable statements as I edited out. Mark in Historic Triangle 13:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV check request 11 Nov 2007

Reverted edits by 82.5.172.110 11 Nov 2007 because edits clearly indicated a POV, but flagged article because current version may not be as NPOV as possible. Request someone familiar with topic to review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackollie (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My Two Cents on Transport history

Ladies & Germs: In an effort to add some historical context, I have added data drawn from the Old Dominion Chapter - NRHS volume on train depots in the state, to show the development of Virginia Beach. Although I haven't seen any period maps, I would bet real money that Atlantic and Pacific Avenues are on the alignments of the abandoned rail connections! The volume, Virginia Railway Depots, authored by Donald R. Traser, and published by the Richmond chapter, is an in-house effort, printed by Walsworth Publishing Company, Marceline, Missouri, 1998, and apparently has no ISBN number. Thank you, you've been a great audience. Don't forget to tip your waiters.... Mark Sublette (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

City Departments?

I've reverted the 'city departments' addition to its own main section in this article. It's really just way too much information for an encyclopedia article like this, and wikipedia is not a directory of services. If it's added back, it should be seriously condensed and paraphrased, with just brief mentions of some of the city services, and it shouldn't be in its own section -- add it to the 'government' section, since they're part of the city government. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful GA nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

It is really difficult to find fault in such a well written, well referenced and comprehensive article. Congratulations. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still a couple of little issues, so I am going to recommend a thorough copyedit at this point. Currently, I see a couple of formatting/wikifying issues (full dates -- month day, year -- should be wikilinked per the manual of style). Reference citations should be placed immediately following punctuation (like this.[1] not like this. [2] [3]) -- there should be no spaces between punctuation marks and reference citations, and no spaces between citations themselves.
There's also a lot of red links throughout the article, almost to the point of being 'too much'. For example, do we really need red links going to potential future articles of individual neighborhoods -- half of the neighborhoods mentioned in the geography section go to nonexistant articles (I'm not even sure that neighborhoods really need an article anyway, so these links can be removed). There's also some links to corporations listed that should be addressed, and wikipedia format usually does not put the "corp." or "inc." in a corporation's name -- simply link to the article on that company, if there is one (but make sure to follow the guidelines of notability, and make sure a corporate article is not spam).
As far as being complete, the article does address the topic reasonably well, and it is well cited. It basically just needs a very good copyedit at this point, and I would not have passed it prior to that stage. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I did take a copyedit with your suggestions. Eventually, I hope this can get to FA. Thank you for your help! Chrisfortier (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Green line mention is infinitely vague and based on misunderstanding.

"Real estate, defense, and tourism are major sectors of the Virginia Beach economy, but the city has begun to run out of clear land available for new construction above the Green Line, an urban growth boundary dividing the urban northern and rural southern sections of the city.[12]"

The referenced article, which I cannot access (but which I might have in a file somewhere), and the brief mention of "the Green Line" are based on the misconception that the "Green Line" was a permanent barrier to development south of Princess Anne Road. While the idea that VB should not be developed south of the Green Line was a popular one, this was never the intention on the "Green Line" policy. The green line was a line on the planning map, which happened to be green. I have a copy of the map. I also have an unpublished policy research paper on the matter. The city was growing so rapidly in the early '80s that an infrastructure crisis was foreseen. Therefore, planners decided (based in part on the policies of Calvert County, Maryland, if I recall correctly) that development should progress as infrastructure could be made available from the established northern region of the city toward the south, eventually covering the peninsula between the West Neck Ck. and the ICW. The development beachhead moved over time and the Green Line was significant foothold in the southern expansion and nothing more. Development has progressed as planned.

The Green Line was a romanticized policy delusion supported by news articles like the one referenced. I think its mention is meaningless outside of some discussion of what it was and what it was perceived to be. The Green Line policy delusion could warrant an article all its own.

Dliebert (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PS

"Virginia Beach receives its water from Lake Gaston."? Really? When I moved away the legal battle to pump from the lake was just ending and city was saying they would only use the lake during water shortages (not that I ever believed it). As a matter of fact most of the immediate region's surface water supply (lakes, excluding rivers) is owned by Norfolk, even the considerable portion that lies in VB. Are they in fact now pumping all of their water from Lake Gaston/the Roanoke River?

safest big city

http://www.citymayors.com/society/uscities_safest.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The climate chart is wrong

The weather channel gives a Jan daytime high of 49, nighttime low 32. The Dec. daytime high is 53, low 36. [4]. Who is planting this false, erroneous information? VA Beach is in the humid subtropical zone, but it is not Jacksonville or Savannah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.221.194 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Weather Channel now has the 1981 to 2010 daily averages for Virginia Beach. The average January day time high is 48°F, and the average night time low is 34°F. The average July day time high is 87°F, and the average night time low is 72°F. [5] — OHWiki (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Although Virginia Beach is not tropical in climate (but is located in the humid subtropical climate zone), the proximity to the warm Atlantic Ocean waters allows gardeners in Virginia Beach to grow some cold hardy palm trees like the cabbage palms (sabal palmetto) as seen along Atlantic Avenue and on the oceanfront. — OHWiki (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

no cursing sign?

I moved the no cursing sign to be within the government section -- it's really poor form to have an image straddle over a main section header like it was. Still, the issue remains that, what exactly does the image have to do with the section, or the article? There really isn't any context for that anywhere in the government section, or elsewhere in the article, so I'm not sure why it's there? I'm tempted to just remove it, but I thought I'd post here first to see if someone wants to add something more about it before just summarily deleting it. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming

Virginia Beach to go underwater http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-new-way-of-thinking-as-sea-levels-rise/2011/06/23/AGq96TmH_story.html Regards, Rumjal rumjal 15:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

April 6, 2012 jet crash

Figured I'd discuss here first to see opinions of others, but should we implement the incident involving a Navy jet plane that crashed into an apartment building complex this city today (April 6, 2012)? It made several news headlines. I also understand the policy WP: Not news, but there are a few exceptions I've heard and saw on here. Tons of Google hits, btw. Tinton5 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Purple Aliens

Being from Virginia Beach I am pretty sure their are no purple aliens. The reference does not support this statement either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.189.49 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to "Virginia Beach"

I think the article title should be changed from "Virginia Beach, Virginia" to "Virginia Beach". Quidster4040 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, but there may be something we are missing. I'll ask User:Wwoods why he moved it.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The titles of articles on US cities include the state name, with a handful of exceptions.[6] (Cities with NFL teams, basically.) Virginia Beach isn't one of them.
—WWoods (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I should have found that myself, but I've always find some of the naming conventions to be a bit opaque..--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I always wondered why some cities have state names and some didn't. It's all very ambiguously done. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. As noted a number of times, the redundancy mentioned in the request doesn't truly exist; one would know Virginia Beach is in Virginia because they know it's there, not because it's in the name of the city. No compelling reason has been provided as to why WP:USPLACE shouldn't apply here. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Beach, Virginia → Virginia Beach – While this move would obviously conflict with WP:USPLACE, I believe it would represent a common sense exception to that disputed guideline. The matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is established; the proposed title redirects here, with no hatnote or disambiguation to suggest it is ambiguous. Furthermore, the current title is quite obviously redundant. If you still write letters, you might find yourself addressing someone at "Virgina Beach, VA," but if you're going on vacation, you don't tell someone, "I'm going to Virginia Beach, Virginia." Your friend, colleague, or whomever you may be addressing knows that Virgina Beach is in Virginia, because it's right there in the name. He or she isn't stupid; neither are our readers. So let's go with the common name. BDD (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I checked a few other beaches, and the current article name is in keeping with the others. Consequently this appears to be the standard at WP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - WP:USPLACE isn't disputed. It reflects US press practice and would cause 1000s of RMs to pick "primary town" if we dropped it. User:The Founders Intent "Virginia Beach is an independent city" - if the article started "Virginia Beach is a beach" then yes, but this isn't an article about a beach (according to the first sentence). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support per common sense. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support - WP:USPLACE most certainly is disputed - usually by about 40% of those who participate in any RFC about it. While no consensus has been developed to overturn it, yet, USPLACE has never attained consensus support in the first place.

    Anyway, in this case WP:IAR should be applied to USPLACE because the proposed title is supported by WP:COMMON and WP:COMMONNAME, not to mention meeting WP:CRITERIA better. Anyone who is familiar with the topic will recognize Virginia Beach checkY. As BDD noted, Virginia Beach is the natural way to refer to this place checkY. It's certainly precise, as it's the only Virginia Beach checkY. There can be no question that Virginia Beach is more concise than the redundant Virginia Beach, Virginia checkY. Should consistency with USPLACE trump all that? I don't think so. --B2C 05:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I think everyone is aware that you dispute it, but I didn't know BDD did. The last RfC I saw had a strong majority debating which restricted list, and almost no one going for wide-open no list at all approach that would make every US geo-stub a battleground.
BDD, The question I have asked is - is the article about a beach or a town. Category:Beaches of Virginia has these articles. Can I tell from the ", Virgina" if the article is about a beach or a town? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Bay Shore Beach = ?
Buckroe Beach, Hampton, Virginia = ?
Chesapeake Beach, Virginia = ?
Croatan Beach, Virginia = ?
Sandbridge Beach = ?
Colonial Beach, Virginia = ?
Majority support has been established for WP:USPLACE on several occasions, but never consensus support.

Requiring this title to convey the topic of this article to someone unfamiliar with this article's topic is putting a burden on this title that no other title is required to carry. --B2C 21:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a super fair thing to say either. What about the following sentence from WP:PRECISE: Bothell is precise enough to be unambiguous, but not as commonly used and easily recognizable as the preferred and more precise title Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names, and the naturalness and recognizability criteria).? AgnosticAphid talk 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I support lesser ambiguity for readers in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), including USPLACE, but not to the point of repeating information "Virginia". I would support "Norfolk Beach, Virginia", if that were the name. Problems? Disambiguation by capitalisation of Beach is too subtle. "Virginia Beach" might imply that this beach is the only beach in Virginia. Actually, that's quite defensible. That's probably why it is called "Virginia Beach". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC) withdraw opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons. First, if there is a need to clarify USPLACE to make an exception for places that have the state name already included in the city name, we should do that at WT:PLACE, not here, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It's difficult to know what the broader community thinks about the substantial change to a high-profile guideline this move signifies given the low participation here. Second, it is at a bare minimum completely unfair to say as B2C did that "USPLACE has never attained consensus support in the first place" – without any qualification – when the last time we had an extended discussion about it (see the box in the "when to close" section) there were twice as many people who supported the comma convention than opposed it. It is equally unfair to say that it's somehow not applicable because it is a "disputed" guideline, whatever that means exactly. Whether it's disputed or not, it's still the current guideline. Because stylistic issues always involve judgment calls, it seems to me that it would be exceedingly unlikely to obtain a unanimous consensus on this type of issue. The current consensus is reflected in the current guidance which requires the ", Virginia" here. AgnosticAphid talk 18:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per common sense and obvious redundancy of the current title (and by "redundancy" I don't mean that "Virginia" in the place name also identifies the state, but that even without the state qualifier the place name remains unique).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2013; 18:57 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:USPLACE is very well-established and very well-defined, and I see no reason for an exception for this place. I also don't understand the objection to "Virginia Beach, Virginia" based on repetitiveness or redundancy. It is neither. This is the convention for United States places, aside from those on the AP list (and this isn't one of those). It's not less concise, since it communicates basic information about the topic. Omnedon (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no compelling reason to make this an exception to WP:USPLACE. The title isn't redundant, as a place named "Virginia Beach" isn't guaranteed to be in Virginia; Virginia City, Nevada isn't, after all. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • But Virginia Beach is in Virginia, and if Virginia City, Nevada were in Virginia adding ", Virginia" would be redundant there too, like like adding ", Oklahoma" to Oklahoma City would be redundant (but wouldn't be if Oklahoma City was in Nevada). --B2C 17:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite sure he would agree that it's necessary, as we don't have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Kansas City (and if we did, it would probably be Kansas City, Missouri). Virginia City is another red herring, because there are multiple places by that name. If there were a Virgina Beach, California, I would never have proposed this. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This is concededly a bit different, but you may find this interesting. AgnosticAphid talk 19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
BDD is correct, of course... the Kansas City in Kansas requires disambiguation.

Unless the Virginia Beach in FL is covered on WP, it's not relevant to disambiguation on WP. --B2C 20:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose, per AgnosticAphid, et al. We have a clear guideline in USPLACE that sets a simple and consistent form for the naming of articles on places such as this: City, State. I see no good reason why this one particular article should be exempted. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not redundant. Just because a city name contains a state name doesn't mean the city is in that state: Virginia City is in Nevada. A number of cities outside of New York State are named "New York", e.g. New York, Kentucky. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of WP:USPLACE and the reasoning about "Virginia City". --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because "Virginia Beach, Virginia" is the way WP:Reliable Sources checkY refer to this city per the AP stylebook and other stylebooks, and because adding the state is the WP:Common usage checkY in the United States and qualifies a legitimate National variety of English. In addition, adding the state makes it clear that we are talking about a city and not a beach. Above all, the clear guideline at WP:USPLACE should prevail and be respected, in part to avoid hundreds of such arguments on individual talk pages so that we can all spend out time doing something constructive toward building an encyclopedia instead of rehashing the same arguments over and over. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure those arguments apply to this particular case? Outside of AP bylines, do reliable sources usually say "Virginia Beach, Virginia"? As for common usage, would you ever tell someone you were going to "Virginia Beach, Virginia"? --BDD (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As for RS, I'm not at all certain, but Virginia Beach, Virginia -wikipedia has 6,820,000 results, which would suggest that RS uses it outside of more "technical" contexts that would always have the ", [state name]". As for common usage, I probably would. There are a number of Counties named "Delaware", but none of them are in Delaware. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that the city's official website prominently appends "Virginia" to the name in the large title banner across the top of every page... ╠╣uw [talk]
In smaller point size with no comma.

The official copyright notice displayed at the bottom of every page on the city's official website, "© 2011 City of Virginia Beach.", makes no reference to state.

In contrast, the official page for the City of Kansas City, Kansas, also includes the state in the logo at the top of their pages, but also in the copyright at the bottom, "© 2011 Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas".

A city with a non-ambiguous name like Virginia Beach has no need to include the state in the copyright notice; that same lack of need applies to WP titles. --B2C 21:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multple Kansas Cites, there's only one Virginia Beach. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That was my point. --B2C 22:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
B2C: And yet that non-ambiguously-named city makes a point of including the state in the large title banner on every page. I think that's quite interesting. :) ╠╣uw [talk] 22:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are you repeating a point I already addressed? --B2C 22:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
B2C, the banner of the website includes the state. The argument has been that no one would normally include the state; but on the website the state was clearly thought important enough to appear on the banner. That's surely significant, and hasn't been addressed, only dismissed. Omnedon (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course it was dismissed. It might relevant to refute the straw man argument that "NO ONE would normally include the state", but it's not pertinent to arguments actually made here. --B2C 10:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You're being too literal. It's been suggested that the state is not normally included; yet on the city's website, it is included. Omnedon (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's not normally included. That doesn't mean it's never included. Finding a few (let alone one) exceptions is irrelevant. What matters is whether the inclusion or exclusion is more common in usage in reliable sources, and, which fits the WP:CRITERIA better. --B2C 03:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no evidence that it is not normally included in reliable sources. This title is consistent with the longstanding and well-defined WP:USPLACE guideline, is entirely consistent with other similar articles, and is more concise. Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Somehow, I thought BDD's question (which I responded to) was a response to my oppose, not MelanieN's. My response is more applicable to my oppose then to MelanieN's. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Since the unqualified name redirects to this article, it has already been established that this is the primary topic for this name. We should use the more concise name as the title. --Polaron | Talk 05:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of these arguments for the move have been made before, over and over and over; but the fact is that we have an well-established guideline for United States places, and these issues have been discussed before (over and over and over). Why do we keep looking at exceptions when tens of thousands of articles (including this one) are already named correctly according to that guideline? It's very well-defined: use "City, State" except for cities on the AP list. This is just a rehash of many previous similar discussions, and we clearly are not going to have a consensus to perform this move. Let's not waste everyone's time. Omnedon (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tough case here to crack. Conflicted support. Can we maybe discuss this at WP:USPLACE? Red Slash 16:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you mean, Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time? --B2C 03:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, yeah. Not that I think this move is out of order in the least. But can't we have the discussion somewhere else? WP:USPLACE is really long-standing and this isn't a crystal-clear opportunity to IAR. IDK. Red Slash 01:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It doesn't have to be a "crystal-clear opportunity" to IAR. And, arguably, it's not even invoking IAR in a case where policies and guidelines conflict, as is the case here, and both sides have to choose what to follow and what to ignore. The question here is whether to follow WP:AT/WP:CRITERIA or WP:USPLACE. My view is that the conflict in WP:USPLACE with WP:CRITERIA suggests that WP:USPLACE has room for improvement... but, for, now, policy trumps guideline. --B2C 15:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, policy (WP:AT) in this case says: When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. Seems pretty clear that WP:USPLACE is applicable here, both by policy and guideline. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
            • B2C, you are manufacturing a conflict between policy and guideline. There is none. Either way, "Virginia Beach, Virginia" is a good title. Omnedon (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Omnedon, my friend, you claim "Virginia Beach, Virginia" is a good title. But on what basis are you determining that it is good? Per WP:CRITERIA, WP:USPLACE, or personal preference? WP:CRITERIA includes "Conciseness - The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." "Virginia Beach, Virginia" is clearly and objectively "longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", as "Virginia Beach" is shorter and still identifies and distinguishes. Therefore, per WP:CRITERIA, "Virginia Beach, Virginia" is not a good title. --B2C 17:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No compelling reason for exception to WP:USPLACE. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structure

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) 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virginia Beach, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV and Undue weight edits on notable people

There is an IP editor who is insisting on adding (incorrectly formatted, by the way) the term "Convicted Felon" to Bob McDonnell in the notable people section. This is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If this is what made him notable, fine. But if he hadn't been the Governor, or any of his other accomplishments, we would never have heard of this. In addition, the IP editor insists on putting it second. Do we list Obama Clinton has being notable for being President of the United States, and then list that he was forced to surrender his attorney's license? Does Spiro Agnew's notability listing in Baltimore list his legal problems? No. Why? That's not why they were notable. Adding it here is simply to put forth a personal position by an editor. Onel5969 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A large part of Bob McDonnell's notability is his felony convictions. In fact, that is likely his single largest claim to fame and got him much more press time than anything else he has done to date. NPOV and Undue Weight are not in conflict here as this is not a biased opinion or subject to personal opinion, this is a fact that is important to the story of Bob McDonnell. If you look up "Bob McDonnell" on Google every single result on the first page (aside from his wiki) is about his felony convictions. I request that this be kept as an important part of his bio in the Notable People section of the Virginia Beach wiki.
Thanks for responding here. Let's wait to hear from other editors, and see what the consensus is. That could take awhile, this page doesn't have a lot of activity, I'll see if I can invite input from others who have been active on the page. Onel5969 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Inviting other editors to the discussion who have contributed in the past few months: Ege3, Jodosma, Mojo Hand, CSSEYS86, PghPhxNfk.
Re:the order which it should be listed - it has been tried to be listed first by somebody else but this was already removed. This is his largest claim to notoriety and therefore should be listed first.
Please, that's your opinion, as I pointed out in my original post. Let's wait until other editors weigh in. Onel5969 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I applaud Onel5969 for the instinct to err on the side of BLP. At the same time, I have to agree that McDonnell's notability has increased significantly due to his conviction. I don't support the recent edit that lists him first as "convicted felon", but I do think it would be appropriate to write something like, "Bob McDonnel, Governor (2010–2014), first Virginia Governor to be convicted of public corruption charges...".--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose a change that mirrors his intro paragraph on his own page. "He was the 71st Governor of Virginia. [He] served on the executive committee of the Republican Governors Association. [He] was a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve. He served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1992 to 2006, and was Attorney General of Virginia from 2006 to 2009."(From Bob McDonnel)
However, I also agree with 169.57.0.214 and Mojo Hand that McDonnel's fame is currently due to his status as the first Virginia governor to be indicted or convicted of any felony.--Magnus Puer (sermo) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We now have a minimum of four people agreeing that this notoriety is due to at least in large part due to McDonnell's felony indictment and conviction and that this should be included. However, Onel5969 seems to be abusing the spirit of Wikipedia. This is not a biased opinion and it has been shown that this does not violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and should be accepted. At this point it appears you're simply being stubborn and prideful other than remaining unbiased on an important subject. --208.167.254.206 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Onel5969 is clearly waiting for a consensus to be reached. Consensus isn't reached in a matter of hours. Only one of five invited editors has weighed in, so we should respectfully wait for a clear consensus to be reached. On a side note, the "show preview" button might be helpful next time--Magnus Puer (sermo) 02:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Magnus Puer - Precisely what I think needs to happen. Right now you have 3 folks who say that the fact that he was convicted of a felony is the most, or second-most notable thing about him (not 4). Besides that, consensus is not a majority vote. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Onel5969 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Re-pinging other editors, and adding others who are active on other city pages... see if we can't get more input. Ege3, Jodosma, CSSEYS86, PghPhxNfk, MarnetteD, ‎Stepheng3, Scarlettail, John from Idegon. Onel5969 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969, what you are doing is perilously close to canvassing. Best practice would be to leave a neutrally worded notice at the Wikiprojects concerned with this article. By unilaterally selecting editors to invite you are setting yourself up to be accused of trying to influence the direction of the consensus. That being said, this whole discussion is pretty much just 7 flavors of ILIKEIT ice cream. No one had presented any argument based in either references or policy. Due to being more or less in agreement with the one that invited me here, I will abstain from making any argument here myself. I suggest DR. John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John from Idegon - The folks I pinged were mostly editors who have contributed on this page, without any selection other than that they were active here. Regarding the four I included who don't contribute to this page, I considered that, and that's why I specifically chose editors who sometimes agree with me, and other times don't, they were simply 4 editors who I've noticed work actively on city pages. My issue is I might post on the US City project, but don't really see this as an issue to post there. Anyway, thanks for responding. Onel5969 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You. would need to post at all the projects covering this page, not just one you unilaterally choose. And you still should. One thing I should hope everyone could agree in is "convicted felon" is way to vague a term to use. Possession of bald eagle feathers is a felony. So is raping, dismembering and eating a baby. Hardly equivalent offenses. John from Idegon (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Convicted Felon" alone is a little too charged for my tastes for a BLP. A felon can mean a lot of different things, and it's not a helpful term in this case. I would not mind it being explained as suggested above by saying what he was particularly charged with. Scarlettail (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As I see it two of the given refs are identical profiles from a Virginia House of Delegates web page and the other gives me a 404 error. None of the given sources cite any convictions so I would say leave it out until you can cite a reliable source. I suggest using the Washington Post ref from the Bob McDonnell article which makes it clear that he "would have been found guilty of just one felony count of lying on a loan document". The same Washington Post article, repeated here uses the phrase "guilty of public corruption" so that is the terminology that should be used if any. Jodosma (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • These list of notable people entries should be as short as possible. "Joe Blow, NFL player", not "Joseph William Blow, dogged linebacker with the winning Philadelphia Eagles". So, "Bob McDonnell, governor of Virginia" period. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Page has been semi-protected til 11 June to stop the repeated addition of "Convicted Felon" by multiple IP's. John from Idegon (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Onel5969, for inviting me to comment on this. You bring up valid points, however, I generally agree that Bob McDonnell's notability has changed due to his conviction for corruption charges and that is an important factor to note on his page. Furthermore, I agree 100% with Scarlettail and suggest clarifying the conviction with more details. Ege3 (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)ege3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virginia Beach, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Sunset in Virginia, Beach Image

How can that picture be of sunset when the sun sets in the west, and would not be over the Atlantic ocean, which is in the east. Could the image instead be the sunRISE is Virginia, Beach ? Leasnam (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that's the Chesapeake Bay ? I don't see waves big enough to be the ocean (?). Leasnam (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
More importantly, it doesn't illustrate the article in any way. It's simply a decoration (and a rather generic one) and as such is out of guidelines. I've removed it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Historical population

The two historical population tables should either be combined or explained better. They may be for two different areas. User-duck (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

no talk why the city merged with county racism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Move Request

This article's title should be moved to simply “Virginia Beach”; partly because the title “Virginia Beach, Virginia” looks too redundant (equivalent for other big cities that are partial namesakes of their state; e.g. Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Jersey City). How do I make a Move Request? They did equivalent moves with article titles: “Las Vegas, Nevada” → Las Vegas; “St. Louis, Missouri” → St. Louis; and said moves aren't even supported by my redundancy argument.

Likewise, I saw that “Category:Chicago, Illinois” was recently moved to Category:Chicago; equivalent with Indianapolis.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally agree - the name seems redundant to me. However, the naming guideline appears to support keeping the redundant name - see WP:USPLACE.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I just saw multiple articles about the horrible shooting today in Virginia Beach, all of which did not qualify with , Virginia, like this CNN article]. I too think it's silly rule-following to include the redundant state in the title of this article, contrary to common usage in reliable English sources. Given my history of supporting removal of the state in cases like this, I'm probably not the best person to make an official WP:RM proposal, otherwise I would. --В²C ☎ 21:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ c
  2. ^ a
  3. ^ b
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Beach,_Virginia/Archive_1&oldid=1182842152"