Wikipedia

Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archive 5

< Talk:Beverly Hills, California
Latest comment: 4 years ago by BeenAroundAWhile in topic Image move reversed
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beverly Hills, 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Large section removed

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A huge section of the article was just removed "Removed pointless list of residents. They are not notable for their contribution to the area just affluence that allows rich people to live in Beverly Hills." Taking WP:BOLD a bit too far? I don't think we normally do anything like that without discussion. Let's do! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Affluent

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We have developed some disagreement over the use of the word "affluent" in the lead sentence. Let's quit reverting each other and discuss it here. Those who want it provide sources, and point out that virtually everyone describes the community as affluent (we could provide a dozen sources). Those who don't want it say that there has been a decision elsewhere at Wikipedia not to use words like this in describing cities. @John from Idegon: could you explain here, as you explained to me, why you are removing this word? @James Allison: could you join the discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Per this RfC, use of economic status indicating adjectives (specifically: Affluent, poor) is depreciated. "There is rough consensus against the inclusion of terms such as "affluent" or "poor" in ledes to articles on cities and towns in general. "
My reasoning:
  1. Affluent has no specific meaning, no defined metric upon which to measure it and is subjective. What it means to you it might not mean to me. I cannot see how it is any different than "Awesome" as a modifier, except that we are obviously talking about financial things when we say affluent. No one would question the labeling of "Awesome" as PUFFERY. As I said, I see no real difference.
  2. On the metrics: Probably the most common metric for affluence is median household income. Modal income would probably be better. Probably an even better metric would be modal home value. But still rich to me and rich to you are never going to be the same thing.
  3. Altho logic dictates that there are far more poor communities in the world than affluent, the word affluent is used much more frequently in article ledes. This lends credence to the puffery argument. It also takes me to my next point.
  4. Many of the additions of affluent that I have seen and reverted over the years appear to have been added as a marketing point. This is a real concern in many areas on Wikipedia. We are slowly getting taken over by the SEO crowd.
  5. Lastly, @James Allison:, you stated in an edit summary that if any community is affluent it is Beverly Hills. I think you may be surprised if you research either median household income or median home value. I do not have the time right now, but I am pretty sure BH isn't even in the top 5 for either....probably not in the top ten either. Yet another puffery based argument. John from Idegon (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
John, I will defer to the result of the RfC and leave it out. However, I disagree with your points 1 and 2. It would not be up to us to decide whether a community is "affluent" or not based on metrics; that would be WP:OR. Our job as encyclopedists is to reflect what independent reliable sources say. If many truly independent sources use the term "affluent" to describe a community, particularly if they frequently use it as a primary descriptor, that would be our cue to include it in our primary descriptor as well. Examples: [1] [2] [3] As I said, I will defer to the RfC, but IMO that is the ONLY reason for omitting it; there really are solid, policy-based reasons why it has been there for so long. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Those are much better sources than what was on the article I agree. And I do think that most would describe Beverly Hills as affluent. But at the end of the day, that would still be editorializing on the part of the journalist writing the story. We don't use editorial content from media sources; I don't see using editorializing as productive either. More so than newspapers, an encyclopedia is supposed to be factual. An adjective that has no definitive meaning does not do that. My last point was meant to show that the perception of affluence does not always match the facts. According to [http:// www.city-data.com/top2.html this], Beverly Hills isn't even in the top 100. John from Idegon (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beverly Hills, 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Rod Stewart

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rod Stewart is from Beverly Hills, California Elevatorsarefun (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that. Thought he was a Brit. What liars those Limeys are, huh?

Persians

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The largest ethnic community are Persians, who make up over 26% of the population of Beverly Hills"? I presume 26% of the minorities? I can't check it, because note 54 doesn't work anymore. Vinvlugt (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Image move reversed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I moved an image of a photo model on duty to a section of the article that mentions entertainment agencies as relevant to the economy of the city. That was reversed here with an edit summary that does not make any sense to me. So now that photo is back where it royally screws up the layout of he article, at least on standard screens like mine. Better? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed after no input here. I would not mind if that image was removed, but seeing it under "Climate" looks ridiculous. Is she a model or just some woman a friend snapped to get her into this article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
She was a model. I took the photo. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it would be better with the photo crew in there, but I don't think I have a negative like that. Some day I might look. BeenAroundAWhile (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California/Archive_5&oldid=1049105253"