Talk:Piedmont, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


"In particular, cost-benefit analyses will reveal that, for many households, Piedmont schools make more economic sense than private schooling." This sounds like it was written by a creative Piedmont real estate agent. Bias? Citation? The whole paragraph is very un-encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This can be largely attributed to the dedicated population of parents who have resources to pay higher prices for housing so that their children can attend Piedmont schools instead of private schools. Is this sentence suggesting personal dedication on the part of Piedmont's parents, or just saying that their money is legally dedicated to the school district? If it's the former, the word "dedicated" should be struck; if the latter, the sentence needs rephrasing.

I find this section pretty offensive and poorly conceived/poorly written overall. Seems like the facts are: parcel tax, additional resources for public schools beyond neighbors' funding streams, excellent scores, many private school options nearby as well. But I find the overtly commercial and un-informative link to a realtor's website as reference #1 to be even more offensive. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be non-commercial? A Piedmont resident and first-time commentor24.23.130.37 05:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

edit war over liberal/disapproval/criticism[edit]

Edit war over: It is an extremely liberal city known for its disapproval of conservatism. A liberal majority runs the city proudly and partisanly, receiving much criticism from residents. As noted with similar edits on Talk:Piedmont High School (California) this controversial statement needs verification from reliable sources as to the elements:

  1. "extremely liberal...known for disapproval"
  2. "liberal majority ... proudly and partisanly"
  3. "much criticism from residents"

Noted sample google news archive edits at the Piedmont High talk page. Zedla (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is over for a second time, for the reasons above. Saying that it doesn't need a source because it becomes fact when one person says it is not good enough, because it breaks both citation and notability policies. Please discontinue adding this information. WHSL (Talk) 10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Past Notable Residents[edit]

What was noted in the article was:

"Author Jack London lived in Piedmont, and Kennedy's Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara grew up in Piedmont, where his family lived on Ranleigh Way."

After checking the 1930 census and various Alameda County voter registrations through 1940, the McNamara's lived on Annerley Road, not on Ranleigh.

Highlandclan (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A Liberal City?[edit]

Your most recent edit to the page went something like this:

It is an extremely liberal city known for its disapproval of conservatism. A liberal majority runs the city proudly and partisanly, receiving much criticism from residents.

I, as the reader, have no idea whether this is a true statement. So, I want to check it. OH NOES! There is no citation or reference. What you need is to reference the relevant political parties in the city and their majorities for the first statement. That will not be too hard: it is a fact, and usually voting in Liberals implies a dislike of Conservatives. Alternatively just run an online questionairre (a little bit dubious). For the second statement, if you are adamant it should go in get an impartial friend to go out and questionairre people on the street: there is no other fair way of doing it. It is inconvenient, but nothing else can be done. I realise my answer doesn't help much, but it is the most factual way of going about this. Elemesh (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. One must source information on Wikipedia, especially if it may be controversial. However, the questionairre is a very questionable source... (by the way, I made the quoted text italics so the whole excerpt can be seen). WHSL (Talk) 10:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

HiHi, your answer actually helps a lot. One question: Would it be acceptable to say "It is a city known for its disapproval of conservatism."? Grammatically, that is correct as long as one person knows it for that. Since I know it for its disapproval, that phrase would be correct, even it it did not disapprove of conservatism. For part two, would it be okay to say "receiving criticism from residents" since I personally know residents who criticize it for that reason, that would be true. How could I cite that? If I follow your directions and we agree and I post it up there, would there be any way to guarantee it doesn't get deleted. I am willing to put work into this, if you are willing to help. :) READY?! (That is not shouting; it's excited!) (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter of grammar. The first statement is fine, as long as you refer to the fact that the ruling council of the city (or whatever it happens to be) are primarily Liberals. Saying it receives criticism from some residents as long as you hav some assurance it is not original research - how you would get this is up to you. If you do all of that, I think the outcome is good enough to stay there until the city is no longer Liberal. Elemesh (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to change it now; I don't mean to do any vandalism. Feel free to delete or fix my edit if it is not what you meant. I mean no wrong. Ready? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Elemesh, if you approve this, is there any way to "lock" this article so people do not delete those two sentences every day? Or can you make that edit irreversible? If you don't approve it, that's fine; please clarify what I did not comprehend. Thanks. (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it slightly. I am still not content with it though - it needs sources badly. See what you can come up with, but I cannot guarantee that in the mean-time an editor will not come storming in and decimate it. Elemesh (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know for a fact that it consists of 60-70% percent voters who supported Hussein Obama, but I did that before and a Wikipedian argued that has nothing to do with being liberal. (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you need to link to that fact or a similar one. Then everything is ok: if you vote for a Liberal president, logic suggests you are liberal. Elemesh (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to find that online from a reputable source and link it. What if I don't find that. I know exactly where and when I read it. It was the second issue of the "Piedmont Post" after the election. I am sure it was published 11/19/2008. As far as I know, only county results are posted online. The county may be even more liberal than Piedmont. Thanks. (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper is fine - it is a reliable source. I am not sure how you reference them, but it is doubtless possible. Try asking at the help desk. Elemesh (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edits, and I'm not going to remove them for now, even though I am obviously displeased they were made. Your disregard for sourcing is unbelievable. And no, there's no reason to protect this article, and there's no way to make that edit irreversible. That is not what this wiki is about. I will eventually remove the statement if no citation continues to be provided. Of course, if one is provided, I will not remove the statement. Newspapers are fine. I would also like you to stop making unhelpful remarks on my page. WHSL (Talk) 11:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WHSL, I am going to leave you with this. I agree the current situation is not ideal, but if correct they are useful encyclopediac content and should be kept, if referenced. Elemesh (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument isn't against the statement's inclusion. It is the inability to provide a source for it, and the IP's previous refusal to acknowledge the reasoning behind sourcing, that really annoys me. Of course, if a source is provided, then I have no reason to remove encyclopedic content. WHSL (Talk) 11:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole argument around justifying the use of the term "liberal" confuses me. The ENTIRE Bay Area is extremely liberal. If you're going by one newspaper article (which is unavailable online, but I understand still a valid reference) and an election results PDF (which agrees that the ENTIRE BAY AREA is extremely liberal), it just seems like a moot point. By the logic given, shouldn't the opening sentence for all cities in the SF Bay Area contain something about being "extremely liberal"? What makes Piedmont unique in this respect? Even the article for Berkeley doesn't mention the word "liberal" until the second paragraph. So perhaps it is the conspicuousness/prominence of it that is causing the problem. (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) jonathan.

I've removed the "well known for its disapproval of Conservatism" line as unsourced OR. I've also removed the voting map ref as OR. Showing that a county voted heavily in favor of Barack Obama in 2008 doesn't show them as liberal, it just shows that they voted heavily in favor of the candidate. I haven't removed the liberal line in the intro yet because I haven't tried to check the article yet. Right now I'm guessing it's more OR based on voting for Barack Obama, but completing the source by filling out {{cite news}} including at least the specific article being mentioned would help me in assuming good faith here. Right now I'm thinking this is the same POV pushing that [[User:]](logged in as well as from various IPs) has been doing, both here and at Piedmont Unified School District and Piedmont High School (California). -Optigan13 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was involved at the PHS edit war and wholeheartedly agree that a city that favored Barack Obama in the 2008 election does not constitute an "extremely liberal" city that is known for its "disapproval of conservatism." The only encyclopedic, non-POV statement I can see that source backing up would be something along the lines of "X percent of Piedmont residents voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election." One might even be able to stretch the information to support a statement like "Piedmont residents supported Democratic Party candidates in the 2008 general election." and your IP addresses - DO NOT take my words out of context, as you did on the PHS discussion. I now see why your RFA failed miserably. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough. I tried to resolve this without getting admins involved when I became involved at the PHS article but this is ridiculous. Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Recurring edit war on articles related to Piedmont, California. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the extremely liberal line(diff). It did not specify an article or page number to verify the source. I had initially hoped would specify what article, but seeing as he's been indef blocked again I've removed it. If anyone wants to specify the article or page being used, or something where I could try and find the article to check that is isn't further improper synthesis feel free to let me know. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable residents[edit]

i added names from the Category for people from piedmont. some of the following names already in the article have no references here or in their articles that say they are from piedmont: al davis, tre cool, billie joe armstrong, peter docter, country joe, dean butler austin tichenor f wayne valley james gamble. also, some other names not in the category are also not refd. i left the info standing wihtout refs, as my purpose was to remove the inappropriate link to the category. all unrefed names should be refd or removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)