Talk:San Bernardino County, California

We must stop the vandalizm on this board.

We must stop the vandalizm on this board.

Somebody again attempted to damage this article.

Someone attempted to delete new information that has been added the past few weeks, and I caught it and reinstated the newer, NPOV info.

Certainly, the county and cities articles (Fontana, Victorville and Redlands are constantly changed without wikipedia approval). Some of the subjects changed relate to race, income class and demographics that many readers didn't like. References to Fontana, which the wikipedia article states "a town known for lower-income whites", is fooled around with. Fontana does have large African American, Slavic, Mexican (Latino) and Japanese communities, but I check it often to find it was deleted. The city is changing, growing fast and more newcomers are racially diverse, so I don't find it inaccurate. Lower-income whites aren't the majority anymore in the San Bernardino area, even the High desert communities are new homes to "yuppies" and commuters whom work in the Los Angeles area. + 207.200.116.201 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

San Bernardino County, California redirect?

There is a San Bernardino County, California redirect to this article. This must be circular and wrong. See Kelso Wash. Please correct.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Community Service Districts

Should they be added to the page? they are not cities or towns, but they have semi-autonomous control from the county. All the community service districts have their own board. For example wrightwood residents have control over their sanitation and parks under the wrightwood CSD, but not zoning. so should it be its own section2603:8000:5000:E9D2:C4EC:7244:7262:B40C (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect 1912 election data?

The presidential election data for 1912 looks anomalous and disagrees with the data on the 1912 United States presidential election in California page. Kevink707 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Election results gone.

Disussion held. What appears to be consensus formed. no need to keep piling on so closing this thing down. Amortias (T)(C) 20:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason as to why the election results table for past elections were wiped from the article? Will it be re-added? SSoto21 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) It is not encyclopedic information. WP:DIRECTORY applies - Wikipedia is not a repository of local voter data, simple as that. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Are you sure that it's not encyclopedic? I've never viewed this info as not encyclopedic. SSoto21 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not sure how directory applies, or how that info isn't encyclopedic. glman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) I agree. That info is absolutely encyclopedic. It’s also on damn near every single county’s page, so there’s clearly an unwritten consensus that it is. I don’t think one random guy’s dissenting opinion should run the day here. Mcleanm302 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC) A consensus of editors at WP:County#Content suggestions did not suggest including detailed year-by-year election results. I agree with User:Cristiano Tomás that these are unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) The consensus on the general list of what should be included doesn't amount to consensus that things outside of that shouldn't be included. Why do you feel they are unencyclopedic and unnecessary? glman (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) There's a pattern of highly-active Wikipedia members of a certain opinion targeting various topics and arguing with subject matter experts that WP:DIRECTORY is a reason to remove hard-to-find information from Wikipedia for readability's sake. I disagreed with the notion in the Sony EXMOR drama from a couple years back, and I still disagree with it. This will be a test as to whether the polysci Wikipedian community has enough clout to outvote this wrong and harmful view. --71.197.6.249 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) And that one random guy definitely shouldn't be making a significant policy change without a consensus. It's a pretty huge change that should require voluminous input from a variety of editors and users. It also shouldn't happen at a page level. Sviscusi (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) There may be a different outcome this time, but be prepared for admin page-active Wikipedians to dig their heels in on this. I really think there should be more deference to subject matter expert needs. Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) It's absolutely encyclopedic. That's insane to say otherwise. Page 209 from 1860's The Political Text-Book or Encylopedia for precedent DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) There are also literally 5 year old templates e.g. Template:United_States_presidential_election_results_table_header behind this data, that's as consensus as it gets. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I agree that it is absolutely encyclopedic. And it is as descriptive in its own way as demographic data, which is also included through the years. It is also the sort of information that can be hard to find after some years. It should definitely stay. TopDomino (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Knowing how a county votes in Presidential elections is arguably just as important as almost all other demographic data such as race and registered voter percentage. It would significantly reduce the ability to understand a county from this page if all demographic data was removed. Orange1861 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I am a political scientist and I literally cited this data as one of the great accomplishments of Wikipedia to a friend the other day. This table needs to stay and if it does not, it will damage the quality of Wikipedia going forward and also hurt public knowledge. Jacob F. H. Smith (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Agreed. Obviously there comes a point where you can't display *all* relevant electoral information, like how a county has voted in downballot races, but presidential election history is a great summary of a county's political history, and I argue is equivalent to other demographic data, which nobody takes issue with being displayed on county pages despite WP:DIRECTORY. There's a longstanding, years-long consensus that county pages display presidential election history. XP6287 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I've used the county presidential elections results table as a sort of Green Book when travelling through parts of rural America, as data going back to whether certain Southern counties had an uptick in third party votes when Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond or George Wallace ran in 1948 and 1968 respectively is a useful snapshot of a location's political identity on top of being potentially lifesaving information. You are exactly right, this information is important and must be kept. Metallicchair (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Election data is absolutely valuable information that can provide encyclopedic insight into a county. I agree with Elli - the solution isn't to purge the tables, it's to expand the county's written political history. ItsAstronomical (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This information is absolutely encyclopaedic, and needs to stay. The consensus on this matter can't be overturned because one person deems it unnecessary. 67.215.45.54 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion should not be happening at the page level. There has been clear, yearslong consensus that these election results table are encyclopedic in nature to merit inclusion in local county pages. Pretty much every county page in the U.S. has one. A single editor can't just decide they want to remove it on one page and insist in this manner. Again, there is clear, long-standing, site-wide consensus on this matter. This Page's talk page is not the right forum for seeking a change in consensus. --haha169 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I really don't know what to say that won't come off as insulting, so I'll just say it: this is austere nonsense based on a stretched reading of WP:DIRECTORY. These stats take literally nothing away from the articles' readability, and contribute plenty. I get that "table of stats" is not the most aesthetically pleasing thing on an article, but we're overcorrecting here. The table gives you an idea of the partisan composition of the county over time, which is vital encyclopedic knowledge. It's not a slippery slope, we can stop with just Presidential results. We should revert the previous consensus and include them. Carlp941 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Political Science scholar here. I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said so I'll keep my comments as short as I can, but the notion that this knowledge isn't encyclopedic is not only insane but flatly wrong. The definition of encyclopedic is comprehensive- what is more comprehensive than this? To claim otherwise is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously. Election data that is encyclopedic while also not having the most unusable design on planet Earth is brutally hard to come by. The election community and profession STILL does not have a comprehensive tool that covers all bases, and Wikipedia is basically the best shot we have. Deleting this information which, without Wikipedia, is *very* annoying to gather if not outright impossible, would be an extreme disgrace to the election community, scholars of political science, and also upset public knowledge such that it would be easier for election misinformation to get out. If your entire purpose is to sit on Wikipedia all day and threaten data that is barely available anywhere else easily and is crucial to tons of people, I genuinely believe you should never touch a Wikipedia article again. 168.91.187.224 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) It's most definitely encyclopedic. If you think it isn't, the community will have to reach a consensus. Until then, don't start clearing sections of articles. Tritario (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Agree generally that removal isn't an improvement. An ideal county page would detail the county's political history in prose, and including a table of presidential election results would be a logical aide to that. The fact that most counties don't yet have the in-depth political history in prose isn't a reason to remove the table though; it's a reason to expand the prose! Elli (talk | contribs) 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC) If you want some background, you should look up the admin page discussions related to Sony EXMOR; there's probably been other communities that have been affected by general pushes for divesting information tables. I would summarize it as subject matter expert needs have been de-prioritized according to the wishes of general Wikipedia editors for readability / terseness. Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) EXMOR is different in that there has not been significant coverage of individual sensors. There has been significant coverage of every presidential election in San Bernardino County, but one should not have to cite the article in the San Bernardino Sun after the election has been certified as a source, that would incredibly clutter up the article with a list of 30 references. Also there have been mnany articles referencing San Bernardino County's partisan swing, which do not exist for EXMOR (much like there have been articles in tech media detailing new Intel or AMD chips). Calwatch (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) The election results table should absolutely not be removed. Actual election results are more vital to understanding the politics of a county than voter registration or nonpartisan local offices. These tables have also been on every county page for years at this point. Jon698 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Not to keep piling on and beat a dead horse but I agree that including election results is absolutely encyclopedic and WP:DIRECTORY doesn't apply. WP:NOTSTATS is also not applicable (the statistics are explained), although a sub-article on the politics of San Bernardino County could arguably be a better place to house the data. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I will note that it is vital to keep county voting data to prevent claims of election fraud. Especially in this day and age of elections denialism… having an open source to refute these claims is important. Worst case scenario is removing this voting data and it can enable a political group to cite a county voted for Candidate A when the county voted for Candidate B. 63.152.27.123 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I agree with previous statements that election results for counties should be considered demographic information; their inclusion is as justified as that of census data. Election results provide some information on how a county's population has changed over time- for example, the election results for Cobb County, Georgia can help demonstrate how quickly the county has suburbanized over the last few decades and how that suburbanization has caused shifts in the county's politics. Removing election results would have a noticeable effect on the amount of demographic information in Cobb County's article, as well as all other county articles. Chaidan (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Removing them strikes me as completely unjustified, given the high information density of these tables, and the fact that they can be collapsed down to take up less space. I see no reason why we should overturn so many years of precedent. Cpotisch (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I would just like to state my opposition to removing election information from county pages. That information strikes me as just as encyclopaedic as information on demographics or the barebones of history you’d expect from a county page. Election information has been on county pages since Moses wore short pants, and it seems most peculiar to strike them off the whim of a single editor working outwith the years-long consensus on this matter. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I would also like to oppose the removal of voting data. It is far more accessible on here than if it is only available at the town hall. Also definitely encyclopedic as it gives a summary of the political history of the area. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Enough has been said already, but I'd also like to register my opposition to these changes in the hopes that this will serve as a reminder of what a terrible idea it is for one or two users to unilaterally seek to overturn a long-standing sectoral consensus based on their own over-zealous interpretation of a general rule.--Leptictidium (mt) 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I would just like to comment that there are some IPs and new accounts here because of this Twitter post Personisinsterest (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Comment: I just want to make everyone aware that there's some WP:canvassing going on from Twitter. https://x.com/MikeMcLean00/status/1805690401938096150 - Di (they-them) (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I hate these weird Twitter people that look at articles from the outside and think they know what's best. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) = :I can't really add much, but it's clear to me that keeping the election results are absolutely within the realm of keeping Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. There is a clear consensus to me on this talk page on the view, and removing it would override years of precedent involving a large number of voices and people, in lieu of the views and voices of one. Walpole2019 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)