Jump to content

Talk:Beverly Hills, California

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UnQuébécois (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 23 September 2012 (→‎Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Untitled

Changed to 90% below poverty line. I've attended city meeting for bhhs students, city manager actually told us it was 90%...

We need a verifiable source for that, please. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean ...granted "a tract of land styled San Antonio." 'Styled' is a funny verb here, no?

Introduction

I have rarely read a Wikipedia entry that required more cleanup than this article about Beverly Hills. The introduction needs a complete overhaul -- the existing opening line referencing West Hollywood [?] and other communities and location information be moved to another section about bordering municipalities.

This leading section should be a summary of what the city is, located in west Los Angeles, and then summarizing it's world-renowned status in movies, television and finance (or whatever). Again, this is an article about the city itself, with the surrounding communities information being in a different section after it's history and community information.

"...Beverly Hills is home to fewer children under 5 years old (about half as many, on average) than live in the entire state of California, and the city is home to almost twice as many seniors over the age of 65." Am I just reading this wrong, or does this sentence make no sense? Shouldn't it read "...Beverly Hills is home to fewer children under 5 years old (about half as many, on average) AS ANY OTHER CITY IN the state of California, and the city is home to almost twice as many seniors over the age of 65"?

NPOV? (and inconsistency)

The article contains "The Golden Triangle, with Rodeo Drive at its center, was built and marketed to the rest of the world as the shopping destination of a lifetime, despite a decidedly unexciting ambiance. In fact, many stores cater to the over-60 crowd." I don't think this can be described as NPOV. It is actually pretty offensive to those over 60. Notinasnaid 18:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next sentence also has a problem: The entire Trousdale Estates area (consisting of many streets) was created during the 1950s, according to the article, so Via Rodeo can't possibly be "the first new street in Beverly Hills in seventy-six years." 24.5.188.157 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were you afraid to remove something so blatantly incorrect? I did it for you. Hrhadam (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quiry

How are the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor the same person? If that is the case, then why is Vice-Mayor even listed? - JVG 12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political affinity

The remaining 23.8% either declined to state political affiliation or are registered with one of the many minor political parties.

I feel the statement is a bit undescriptive. 23.8% is quite a large percentage. I would assume most of these decline to comment but its possible quite a high percentage are registered with minor political parties. In any case, I feel this needs improvement. You don't have to state the percentages for each political party although if there are any with over 5% I would suggest it should also be stated expicilitly. But you should at least state the number who declined as a seperate figure. Nil Einne 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Shouldn't there be a map showing it's location ? -- Beardo 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be. Also, the intro states that Beverly Hills is entirely surrounded by the city of Los Angeles and that it borders the city of West Hollywood. Both statements cannot be true. --Nelson Ricardo 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maps are good, but finding one that is not copyright can be difficult. Notinasnaid 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the statements could both be true if the city of West Hollywood is part of the city of Los Angeles. Notinasnaid 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
West Hollywood is a separate incorporated city within Los Angeles County. 24.5.188.157 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

questions on city history

I wonder how come Richard Burton (land owner, not actor) and C.W. Griffith aren't mentioned in cofoundation of Beverly Hills? I figured the man was Burton E. Green and I may got the name wrong. Not only Burton's name is recognized in the history of Los Angeles, but has a street named for him: Burton Way, the dividing line of the city in address designation (anywhere north of Burton addresses are 100, 200 and 300N, south of Burton is 100 S, 200S and 300S). Is Burton E. Green and Richard Burton the same man or came from the same family? I'm so confused on this matter, reply on that. + Mike D 26 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an example of one of those mistakes that gets copied over to a few different places on the internet. Burton Way is named for Burton Green, not Richard Burton. I'll remove the incorrect reference from the article. Incidentally, Burton Green owned a 4 acre estate located on Cove Way, above Sunset Boulevard. Hrhadam (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the city

How did the city come to be called Beverly Hills? I see no explanation for this anywhere in the article. Funnyhat 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was named after the Beverly Hills Hotel which was named after the Beverly Canyon that the hotel sits in. Where Beverly Canyon got its name-I dont know? 75.43.194.113 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just plain silly! When the name was devised, William Howard Taft was President of the United States and he maintained a “Summer White House” in Beverly, MA. THAT is where the name came from. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills is also called Bhairav Choti in the rest of the world. - I'd have to say that's probably not the rest of the English speaking world Photovoltage (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're all incorrect. Additionally, Beverly Hills is the sister city of Cannes, as denoted by signs at certain entry points to the city. Maybe I'll add this fact and leave it unsourced, as is the rest of this pathetic article. Hrhadam (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP codes

Infobox says ZIP codes are: 90210, 90211, 90212. Article says ZIP codes are: 90210, 90211, 90212, 90213. It seems contradictory. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90213 = PO Boxes only. Hrhadam (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

"The racial makeup of the city was 85.1% White (Including Iranians) or African American" - I'm confused with this statement. Does this mean that African-Americans are included in the Beverly Hills census with whites, and if so why? Shouldn't there also be a statistic for the percentage of city population that is African-American? 72.39.210.23 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Caption

The photo caption "Beverly Hills Police being inspected by Sir Harry Lauder, late 1930s" is surely a malicious entry. Sir must have been 70 at the time and the man in the picture appears younger. Also see now reason why he should be in California wearing a police uniform and carrying a firearmMatthew10946 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

remove/overhaul local diverity section under demographics

the article cites nothing for many of the claims it makes. i attached at least 20 citation needed for all the empty claims made in that section. Can someone either get to citing any of those claims or remove that section completely? - Xenfreak (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work to do, Lots of edits to check for and verify, and Lots of entries with skeptical claims of a diverse international yet wealthy popular community. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beverly_Hills,_California&diff=prev&oldid=367345727#Local_diversity Mike D 26 (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Income?

Why is there no information on the median income? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.71.178 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding unsourced material re Persian/Jewish population

These IPs from Czechoslavakis the Czech Republic (85.162.96.197, 85.162.172.143, 85.162.62.139, 85.162.50.187) are repeatedly inserting badly sourced information about the Persian/Jewish population of Beverly Hills and its high school. Based on this track record, watchers of this page should be alert to future misinformation stemming from similar IPs. Given the geopolitical tensions related to these groups, I believe it is in Wikipedia's interest to err on the side of caution, and of being well-sourced on this issue. For demographic purposes, article about a television program is hardly a reliable source. I will remove the latest badly sourced information, that User:Severino already flagged as dubious. Especially on a topic like this, let us have reliable sources before inserting material. Health Researcher (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your reproach, but please notice, that Czechoslovakia no longer exists for more than 20 years. You must be an American.--85.162.22.3 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reference?

There appears to be a circular reference in footnote #11. The source article referenced attributes it's content, at least in part, to the Wikipedia entry on Beverly Hills! This needs to be sorted out and 're-cited', so to speak.

Ironically, the site cited in #11 contains a much more cogent and easy to read history of the area. Whether the facts are right -- who knows! (There are no citations or foot notes.)

BTW, This wikipedia article needs SO MUCH help! I can't believe some BH Realtor or other community VIP hasn't taken the initiative and edited it -- it could be quite the 'feather in the cap'. It's just a teeny-tiny bit disgraceful!

Good luck!

208.54.39.180 (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC) A Cuban-American Princess[reply]

Apex?

Near the bottom of the page is:

"The Golden Triangle, with Rodeo Drive at its center, was marketed as the apex of chic shopping and fashion."

I have removed some of the links so as not to confuse the search bots any more than necessary.

I note that "apex" is wikilinked, which takes it to a disambig page from which a plethora of different usages of apex are used, none of which are appropriate for this example of marketing psychobabble. My gut reaction would be simply to remove the link. Anyone object? Or should we set up a page for a general definition of "apex", or should we link to Wiktionary or something? --Matt Westwood 12:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location & surrounding municipalities...?

I don't believe that the city of BH is surrounded by the CITY OF LA, I'm pretty sure it's bounded at least on the north by [unincorporated?] areas of LA county which is a VERY different thing. Does anyone else know or have an opinion strong enough to motivate some research & editing?

I've just completed an edit of what is now the first paragraph. Please see summary. I did some quick census research and looked up the word "dignitary" to make sure I was correct before I made any changes.

I don't have any more bandwidth for this right now.

I agree with the earlier comment that it's pretty messy but at least someone started it and now it's easier for us to pitch in here and there to refine it.

Thank you,

Robin (iamtheyorkiemom) 8:22 pm 3-8-12— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheyorkiemom (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move Aug 2012

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: Not Moved in deference to WP:USPLACE, consensus is split. If editors believe USPLACE contradicts Commonsense and PrimaryTopic then fix the guidelines first. Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Beverly Hills, California → Beverly Hills – In February, I redirected Beverly Hills to Beverly Hills (disambiguation). It was moved back the next day by R'n'B, who said it was the primary topic. If it is the primary topic, then, like Brooklyn, Las Vegas and Cleveland, it should not need the state and should be just Beverly Hills. Unreal7 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: USPLACE is just a guideline: What's the point of having guidelines, if we can flout them whenever we feel like it? By this logic there would be no reason for USPLACE to exist. Also, please note that the guidelines on that page are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"....though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is a clear case where an exception would be acceptable - this is a city that is very prominent worldwide, so adding the statename qualifier just for the sake of following a guideline and keeping consistency with smaller US cities is simply unnecessary. Cheers, Rai•me 04:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without commenting on the larger USPLACE issue, I think it's somewhat odd that WP naming conventions essentially require "Beverly Hills, California", but allow "Brooklyn", "La Jolla", and "Dinkytown". Well-known neighborhoods or districts do not have to use commas - unless they happen to be incorporated. Hmm. Dohn joe (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per place names like Dallas, Miami, New Orleans. This is a place that is world renowned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The consensus appears to be that the unqualified name "Beverly Hills" refers to the topic of this article. In that case, making the name longer than necessary is not in keeping with the general Wikipedia principles of article titling. --Polaron | Talk 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Consistent application of consistent policy (i.e., that the state name is included for all U.S. city names except for the short Associated Press list of cities that don't need it) is preferable to a never-ending series of move discussions like this one. Long live stare decisis! --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—per Orlady. There are at least 6 other places in the US called "Beverly Hills." Some editors have a feeling that the one in California is the real one, but our readers may feel differently. Since we have an objective standard in the AP list, and we know AP is thinking of their readers, we should stick with it to avoid wasting time and energy on endless discussions like the one I'm currently typing this comment regarding.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose per WP:USPLACE, a longstanding agreement to follow the lead of Reliable Sources in naming U.S. cities. (This is in line with Wikipedia policy as stated at WP:Article titles: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.") Reliable Sources in the U.S. follow the AP stylebook and so do we. That stylebook states that U.S. cities are to be named as [[City, State]] except for 30 named exceptions. This is also in line with standard American usage, where if I tell someone I come from Missoula, they will invariably reply "Missoula, Montana?" even though there is only one Missoula. This agreement was hashed out a long time ago, and it has eliminated hundreds of time-wasting arguments at individual pages - or at least, it would eliminate arguments like this one if people would just respect it and stop trying to sneak through exceptions on individual city pages. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Actually more of a question. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly the problem would be with renaming the article. Some quote MOS:PLACE#UNITED STATES, which I agree with. There are some articles that only use the <city> name, while others need <City>, <State>. What I don't understand are the arguments claiming that there are "other" cities called Beverly Hills in the US. But do those articles really get that much article traffic? WP:USPLACE is not out of date, as one editor suggests, but on the other hand, should not stop us from making clear common sense decisions. And since Beverly Hills seems to already redirect to this article, there will little collateral damage.--JOJ Hutton 22:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with WP:USPLACE then there is nothing further to say. According to USPLACE, city names are supposed to use [[City, State]] unless they are on the AP stylebook list of exceptions. That AP list includes just 30 cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.[1] Beverly Hills is not on that list. Therefore, it doesn't matter if there are other cities named Beverly Hills. It doesn't matter if Beverly Hills, California is the best known such city. It doesn't matter if the other articles get a lot less traffic. USPLACE would list this city as Beverly Hills, California because that is how Reliable Sources (relying on the AP stylebook) list it and that is the guideline we have accepted. If you agree with USPLACE as you say, then that is the end of the discussion. If you think this city should be an exception, then you are proposing to tear up USPLACE and replace it with some other standard, and that idea should be discussed in a more general forum. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah? I just think of Beverly Hills as synonymous with luxurious Hollywood culture (cf. the Weezer song, the TV shows) and Nashville as synonymous with country music. And of the two, the former seems a larger cultural presence in international terms. It's not about how much you know about the city, it's how ambiguous the name is. I was surprised to learn that there are other places called Beverly Hills; none of them have the sort of profile this one does. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still comparing the relative size of the cities, which I think is the wrong approach. It's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue. Beverly Hills has fewer other topics compared to Nashville. I say this is a better case, but I really think they're both good cases. I think the great majority of users who type in an unqualified "Nasvhille" or "Beverly Hills" are looking for the cities in Tennessee and California. The former and extant redirects, respectively, acknowledge the primary topic argument. Given that, I question the value of qualifiers in such cases. How do you figure Portland has a better case? The cities in Maine and Oregon are both the largest in the state. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Beverly Hills is synonymous with Beverly Hills, CA. Notability of the city out weighs the WP:USPLACE guidelines. Sumanch (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beverly Hills, California is a long ways from the only Beverly Hills in the US. Sets a dangerous precedent. Example: Lansing, Michigan is far better known than Lansing, Illinois. What if they want an exception to WP:USPLACE? Just because it is better known is no reason to deviate from WP:USPLACE. All of the AP exceptions are huge cities; most have a unique name. Someone above mentioned Nashville. It needs to be Nashville, TN to avoid confusion with the numerous other Nashville's. IMHO this is a nobrainer. It is nothing but homerism and as such violates WP:NPOV. My feeling is in agreement with the above: Debating this over an individual city is a huge waste of time. If you don't like WP:USPLACE, start a discussion to modify it. Until then...Live with it. We do not need to keep reinventing the wheel. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Premature close

I believe the previous RM discussion was closed prematurely: consensus had not been reached, discussion was still quite active the days prior to the close, and many important points were not yet raised, much less discussed. Also, the closing admin used the argument that the relevant guideline should be changed first, apparently unaware of the Catch-22 situation that creates since behavior at the article level must change (per IAR, if nothing else) before the guideline can be changed.

I was not aware of the proposal/discussion until a month after it was closed. When I requested that the closing admin revert his close and re-open the discussion, he replied that he felt too much time had gone by. I considered a move review, but decided a new RM proposal/discussion, that summarized the main points, would be less confrontational and more likely to help us achieve consensus. Accordingly, I'm starting a new proposal/discussion below.

Yes, it's very soon after the last one, but given these considerations, I think it's warranted. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Beverly Hills, California → Beverly Hills – This article's topic is primary for "Beverly Hills", "Beverly Hills" is the actual and most commonly used name of this topic, and disambiguation is unnecessary. All these good reasons are already more than sufficient to ignore WP:USPLACE, but there are more:

  1. USPLACE is unnecessarily inconsistent with most other naming conventions, including those for non-US cities, most of which call for disambiguation only when necessary.
  2. It sets a bad precedent to redirect a short concise name to a longer disambiguated title when it's unnecessary.
  3. USPLACE never had community consensus support (the convention to disambiguate all US city titles with the state was imposed en masse by a bot, not organically adopted through change at one article at a time, the only process by which broad community consensus can truly be determined).
  4. USPLACE, a guideline, contradicts the main naming criteria outlined at WP:AT, a policy, which calls for using the more natural and concise title.
  5. The removal of the state from the articles about cities on the AP list was also strongly opposed, yet no harm has come to WP as a result of all of those moves, such as San Francisco, California → San Francisco.

Finally, merely invoking a guideline like USPLACE does not refute an IAR argument to ignore that guideline, especially one based on such very good reasons. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail to see that this topic was just decided above? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they did, and instead of living with the crappy result, decided to reopen a new discussion right away.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California&oldid=514226193"