Talk:Inland Empire

Riv-SB-Ont MSA

this article uses info about the MSA. now since the census is around the corner, that may change, so instead it may become the Riv-SB-Font-Ont msa since fontana is almost the same population of San bernardino. in other words, a portion of this article may need to be revised towards the end of this year.Javiern (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Were did you get this from? Also SB's population exceeds 200K, near 210K, while fontana does not even have more than 190K. House1090 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

i know but if you read my comment carefully instead of being a stubborn mule you would have noticed that i said that it may change from riv-sb-ont to riv-sb-font-ont on the basis of population. ontario in the 2000 census was the third largest city in the region. now fontana is bigger than ontario(and almost the same population as san bernardino)never said it was the same). thats why i said it may have to be revised towards the end of the year to reflect the new changes. dude, you have to learn to control your temper. reading the other portions of the talk page, you seem to only want to put your knowledge but no one else. all i did is give a suggestion to revise the article towards the end of this year to reflect the new census information. Javiern (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

im sorry for being rude i also need to control my temperJaviern (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, the census only uses 3 cities, never 4. If you are not sure dont suggest it. Now SB and fontanas population are not even close, so again your showing your ignorance. Its like comparing LA's population vs. San Diego or San Fran. And how do I need to control my temper? I did not talk to you in a rude way. Now you need to take some time off and take look at Wikipedia:Civility, so you can learn to be polite and use some manners.House1090 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that that in itself was very rude and could have been rephrased more politely. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on the opening paragraph.

The paragraph opens, "The Inland Empire is a metropolitan region". I think it should be changed to, "The Inland Empire is an urbanized area" or something that doesn't use metropolitan since people might confuse it with it actually being a metropolitan area, even using, "The Inland Empire is a two county region" would work. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. See above. House1090 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in from my sabbatical to actually concur with House on something. The IE actually is thought of as a metropolitan area, believe it or not. "Region" is about the most inclusive, generic term to use that allows for the various ways of determining its boundaries and defining its characteristics. "Urbanized area" is too specialized... and only a small portion of the two counties are urbanized. I would have no objection to "two county region" but am not going to get into a fight over this. Amerique^dialectics 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just feel that i gets confused. I also don't want to start an argument, but i think two county region is a better description. SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Two county region" is also fine with me... but let's wait and see if there is any other feedback;-) Amerique^dialectics 02:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think no one wants to start an argument but we already discussed this before. House1090 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amerique and i are in favor of "two county region". House isn't. Now we wait for other feedback. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but shouldn't the "I" be capitalized in the sentence above. SoCal L.A. is a good editor but really needs to improve spelling habits. Western Pines (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the term "Inland Empire" to be a vague non-specific term. Depending on who is talking and in what context it sometimes refers to the two-county region, sometimes a much smaller region, and sometimes it even includes Eastern LA County. In my opinion, claiming the term refers only to the two-county region would be incorrect and misleading. The only thing you can say with certainty is that the term "Inland Empire" refers to an area in and around the two cities of Riverside and San Bernardino. Sometimes that is all of both counties, sometimes it is not. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jim. The wording we have now ("metropolitan region") seems to me to be the best descriptor. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with that too. It was painstaking work to get to that description in the first place. Amerique^dialectics 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, Torritorri, and Amerique. House1090 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense Jim. It should stay. Thank you for always backing up what you believe with persuasive information and arguments. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Inland Empire" in CA is a comparative NEW regional nickname brazenly 'borrowed' from the Original, real IE in the NW only within less than 50 years at most. To imply or try and state otherwise in an online 'encyclopedia' (as if it's been in use since the early 20th century) is disingenuous and flat out wrong on many levels, even if it's done without any malicious intent (or knowledge). The "IE" in CA was known as the "Orange Empire", never the "Inland Empire" prior to the mid to early 50s. I'd point folks to educate themselves, for example, by reading even one of the new "Inland Empire's" own news sources, where at least some in the new "IE" have no qualms with confirming the truth that the "IE" name in CA is nothing more than a marketing ploy and an unimaginative one at that to have no ideas of their own where they feel the need to have to steal another region's nickname as their own (I mean this is no different or no less absurd and shameless than if the charleton "IE" in CA decided one morning to suddenly call itself "New England" or "The Big Sky Country" and make up a phony history to back it up): http://www.inlandempire.us/news/2006/01/how-inland-empire-got-its-name.html. That is why it's a "vague non-specific" term for the "IE" in CA, because it has no reason to go by that name, while the original Inland Empire does from its very founding. Hope that helps & you might want to update the article to address this actual origin with the name switch from "Orange Empire" to "IE" in the 50s. Peace!72.90.204.68 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Before ascribing malicious motives and insulting the population of an entire region, many of whom either don't care or had nothing to do with the name, do try to cite an actual reliable source. Reliable sources usually aren't press releases, and don't cite Wikipedia itself for their information. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 15:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Cities

I removed a lot of Other Cities and House added Palm Springs and 29 Palms. The reason i removed them is because they are not major cities of the Inland Empire. Though they may be cities of their respective regions. I still believe the list to be much to long. Just take a look at other metro pages. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with SoCal, but it is not a huge issue. Amerique^dialectics 03:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we can remove Corona? What do you think? There are other more important cities than Cornoa (for example). Also keep in mind that the Inland Empire is a large area so it may have a little more (2 more) cities than the average metropolitan area article. House1090 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps large by U.S. standards, but small in comparison to global populations. Anyways, you know more about the Inland Empire so i would keep the list to 4-5 at the max, having only the most important or largest cities. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Also, I mean in terms of land, and the IE is the 25th largest in the Americas in population. House1090 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What about 29 Palms? It doesn't look terribly important to the region as a whole. I think if we take one more off it would be just fine!

What about in regard the world? I'm just curious as to how large it is. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Twentynine Palms has a Marine Corps base, and the economic center for the Morongo Basin. I was thinking of changing Rancho Cucamonga with Barstow as Barstow is more important. Anyways I am flexible with this. House1090 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Inland Empire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 03:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. By the way, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and US Census Bureau disagree with you. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 06:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Murrieta and Temecula

Should they be in the infobox under "other cities"? My rationale for adding them is that they are both relatively large cities, definitely bigger than 29 Palms, which is already on the list. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the largest one between the two, since they are both in the San Jaciento Valley. House1090 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Victor Valley

Please provide a quote from Rosenblatt's LA Times article that supports the statement "residents of the Victor Valley consider themselves separate from the IE". Also, using HTML comments to push a POV is bad form. No one can view those comments except editors, so what's the point? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The point was for editors to see it, not to push a POV. The article doesn't say specifically that ANYONE considers themselves separate from the IE, so maybe that whole section should be removed. Otherwise, the article specifically points to questionable cities, and anyone who knows where Phelan is will understand that if Phelan is in question, the majority of the Victor Valley is also in question. I could state that I live there, but that would be "original research" and thus not necessarily encyclopedic. ;)

Also note that my comment in the infobox area was truthful about the absence of Palm Springs area. I do not see this as a problem, but worth mentioning before some other editor didn't understand why I added that, and decided to revert it.MXVN (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)