Jump to content

Talk:Sonoma County, California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sonoma County)
Former good article nomineeSonoma County, California was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Untitled

[edit]

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.


Sonoma County American Viticultural Areas

[edit]

For the record, here are Sonoma County's 11 distinct (and 2 shared) American Viticultural Areas, in case someone actually writes articles on them and the links become active:

Sonoma County Wineries

[edit]

Also for the record are the wineries from the old list in the main article, wikilinked so that if someone does write articles on them, they'll become noticeably active:

Names minus "Winery"

--Calton | Talk 07:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Item on David Bruce Winery and the 1976 Paris Judgement has been moved to the Santa Cruz County, California page because the winery in question was in that county:

The corresponding reference was also moved

--Skinnerbird 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The long winery list in this article is cumbersome and probably should go into a separate article with branching ref in this article. what do others think? Anlace 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated Settlements

[edit]

All unincorporated settlements (some mostly historic) added for someone to expand. Taken from USGS maps and Compass Maps' Santa Rosa and Sonoma, Petaluma and Sonoma County (ISBN 156575235X). At the time of purchase (circa 1995), this map was very outdated, but the settlement names match entries on USGS maps for Sonoma County.

--Skinnerbird 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the cities and unicorporated settlements are in both the main article and at the end in a template box, perhaps they should just be in one place.

--skinnerbird 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darned Wikitable

[edit]

One thing I noticed while checking the results of the Geo and Transpo realignment, is that the Wikitable of national claims to the land is not displaying properly. The text seems to be overlapping into the flag cells... Edit Centric 19:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, must have been a screen glitch, cleared my browser cache, went back, and now it's displaying properly. Again, hmm... Edit Centric 07:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Months later, I see it this way too. Do others? Maybe there's something wrong with the Wikitable?

overly cumbersome lists

[edit]

The lengths of the wineries and film sections are out of balance with needed breadth of coverage in other expansion areas. perhaps each (wineries and films) should have its own separate sub article. this article badly needs expansion on such topics as geology, history, prehistory, ecology, land use and culture. so the breadth issues must be proportionate to the topic importance. what do others think? Anlace 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Sonoma County resident for more than 50 years, I agree the article doesn't cover the fundamental topics you cited. Wineries and tourism have become Sonoma County's major industries, but this page doesn't need to list more than the major wineries and vineyards. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the list of wineries and movies. But there is so much more to talk about. My suggestion would be to format the lists into a more managable space. I think the wineries are fine how they are, but the movies definately can be improved. I'm willing to go over the whole thing and reformat stuff, but I'm not going to do it if it ends up just being reverted. So If I get a general OK in here, I'll be happy to fix up the article. Sue Rangell 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sue. I think we generally agree with Anlace, that "geology, history, prehistory, ecology, land use and culture" (among others) are the significant topics. Speaking only for myself, I may further edit the wineries section as time permits, but I have little interest in the list of movies made here. Btw, the Santa Rosa article has a long list of movies. -- Mukrkrgsj 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just did a MAJOR rework of the wineries section, I hope everyone likes it, I really put a lot of work into it. Sue Rangell 04:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: After many hours of work, the formattiong is done. Work was done on all of the big clumsy lists. No data has been changed added or deleted, only beautifying. (Adding a few hundred tiny edits) my fingers hurt, but the page is beautiful now. I am recommending it for a featured page. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One explanation for all the "overly cumbersome lists" here, is that the "WikiProject U.S. Counties standards" page recommends them! Likewise, what's here so far appears to follow the recommended template fairly closely. Click on the link at the top of this page. -- Mukrkrgsj 15:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for featured page ...and defacement

[edit]
After almost five months this article contains the same problems that Anlace brought up originally:
"The lengths of the wineries and film sections are out of balance with needed breadth of coverage in other expansion areas. ...
this article badly needs expansion on such topics as geology, history, prehistory, ecology, land use and culture.
so the breadth issues must be proportionate to the topic importance. what do others think?
I think you should be listened to, Anlace. Also, Mukrkrgs brought up tourism, a major industry in Sonoma County, and there's not a single word about tourism in the article. This article needs vast improvement, please listen to these editors Anlace and Mukrkrgs and their suggestions, as they are right on target. Please withdraw this from FAC until you have reviewed the criteria for FAC. Lists are lists, a different type of article on Wikipedia. If you want to make lists, that is fine, please do so. But an article is not simply a collection of lists, it's something people can read, not search if a specific thing is there, or how many. Please add prose sections to all of the lists that develop the context of the list and make the lists separate articles by themselves. Thanks. KP Botany 03:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, of course; but I don't see the benefit of hanging three banners at the top, and eight more below, to criticize the volunteer contributors for their lack of progress on this article. -- Mukrkrgsj 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to identify explicitly what needs to be done, through the banners, which also alert users, not just editors, that there is a problem with the article and/or section, and this needs fixed, and Wikipedia is aware of the problem. The interior banners show that introductory sections need to be added to these places, to identify, as requested by one editor, exactly what needs fixed. Anlace brought the issues up, and instead of being attended to over the last 5 months the article is up for FAC!KP Botany 08:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I've already agreed the article needs a great deal of work. But Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteer amateurs, for the sheer joy of doing it. Knowing that some monitor is looking over my shoulder, and measuring my work against Wiki's rigid standards, takes the joy out of contributing to worthy articles like this. -- Mukrkrgsj 12:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that some monitor is looking over my shoulder has greatly improved the quality of my articles. Wikipedia may be written for the sheer joy, but it has a huge market share on where people go to get information, and it has some responsibility to the users. This article simply needs a tremendous amount of work, and the editor who nominated it for FAC simply will not look at the FAC criteria or do anything to improve the article and make it a FAC. There may also be some issues with User:Sue Rangell also--see her talk page history, but I will bring it up at WP:AN/I.
You also are ignoring the most important point, these banners may bring other competent editors to this article to improve it. This article needs some serious editing. Let's let those who can do so, do it. Mukrkrgs, let's you and I put this on hold for a while, until Sue Rangell is identified. KP Botany 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP Botany, I'm not sure why you are doing this. While not absolutely perfect, I still think that this will make a very nice featured article. I get the impression that you are more concerned with torpedoing the article, than improving it. I'm not sure why. A lot of us have put a lot of work into this article, and you should let it have it's shot. I would be more sympathetic if you had shown intrest in the article PRIOR to it's nomination, but you didn't. I think you are being a negative-Nelly. Your banners 12 of them! amount to defacement in my opinion, and I hope you will consider taking them down..Sue Rangell[citation needed] 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I don't think User:Nesbit's user page is copyrighted, but I do think that if you copy extensively from his user page and represent his interests and statements as your identity, you are misrepresenting yourself to the Wikipedia community, and this causes me concern about your editing this or any other article on Wikipedia. I believe your sources, or lack of sources, simply must be checked immediately. I will not be dealing with you until this matter of your claimed identity is resolved. KP Botany 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would seem to be between me and Nesbit, don't you think? And I fail to understand what any of that has to do with this article. Also, I won't edit war with you or anyone else, so stop trying to bait me. I don't even want to argue with anyone, so stop trying to bait me there too. I'm not sure what you're about or where your coming from, but I'm not your enemy, nor will I ever be, nor will I get into any sort of fruitless discussion with you or anyone else. This page is for discussion of the Sonoma County page, not about who you think I may or may not be. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck my Freinds

[edit]

Guys I'm really sorry about all the negativity that came up over the nomination. It's a very nice page, but I can't handle the personal attacks I've endured for the past three days just for nominating it. I've been called a clone, a spy, everything else under the sun, even endured two complaints posted on the admin talk pages over this crap. I don't do well with psychos, so I'll be moving on. I feel terrible about it, but the last thing I ever expected was to pick up a wikistalker. You gotta love someone who is completely unheard of, then once the page is nominated, shows up and plasters the page with 12 warning banners and begins personally attacking people until the nomination is withdrawn. (Yes I withdrew it) ...and then disappears again.

I'm sorry about the rant, but I needed it off my chest. Feel free to delete it if it's offensive. I truly am sorry about the trouble. I still think it's a great article, and yes I still think it's worthy of Featured Article Status, considering some of the Featured Articles are not as good in my opinion. Sonoma County is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I hope it get's a featured Article someday. Good luck with it guys, that's from the heart. It's time for me to go.

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to tackle the lists

[edit]

Well we have made a lot of progress on this article. Regarding the lists, i propose the following:

1. for the cities list, put only the unincorporated entities in list form. the incorporated cities are already in text form and no reason to duplicate. The adjacent counties can be covered in one text sentence.

2. for the wineries, i propose a new sub-article called Sonoma County wineries that would take the list and we can write a short summary section on history and standing of the Sonoma County AVAs. I, in fact, just found that there already exists a list article called List of wineries in Santa Rosa, California, so, alternatively, we could update that list (to include all the county wineries) and use that vehicle to streamline the Sonoma County article.

3. create a new subarticle for the film locations. Anlace 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 be sure to check form for other counties and their wineries, and either copy, or if appropriate suggest a form according to naming conventions, etc. There are many more wineries in Sonoma County than in Santa Rosa, so are you suggesting subsume the Santa Rosa wineries? That would work, but it might be a pet list. Also, I think the history of wineries in Sonoma is longer than the usual text in a list article. Good work thus far. KP Botany 03:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is a good one, which i was actually ruminating. Better to create a new article called Sonoma County wineries, so that the important history, AVA discussion, etc. can be covered and not just a big list. In any case i was thinking the list (within the new sub-article) should cover the whole county, not just the santa rosa wineries. Anlace 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and: 1. Suggest describing the smaller towns, and eventually deleting the table. 2. Recommend adding the Sonoma County wineries subarticle. I think many users will be looking for major articles about Wine Country appellations, vineyards, wineries, winemakers, and wines, and these should be separate from the Sonoma County page. 3. Recommend the new film subarticle. --Mukrkrgsj 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the Introduction

[edit]

The introduction has been edited to read:

"In prehistoric times Sonoma County was the home to several distinct Native American tribes, who lived within the carrying capacity of the land; by 1850, European settlement had set a new direction that would prove to radically alter the course of land use and resource management of this region."

True, the Pomo, Coast Miwok, and Wappo Indians were small bands of hunter/gatherers, and the increased numbers and technology of European settlers have profoundly altered the environment. I argue locally against continuous growth and development for private profit, but I'm not comfortable with this land use/carrying capacity/resource management approach to history here. Comments?

The intro continues:

"As of 2007 Sonoma County has rich agricultural land capability, and has also preserved considerable forested area, beach habitat and other open space; these preservation efforts are products of an electorate that is aware of the value of resource conservation, expressed through an open space initiative[1] that has provided considerable funding for public acquisition of natural areas."

If the previous sentence is kept, I would edit this one to read:

"As of 2007, Sonoma County still has rich agricultural land. The voters have twice approved an open space initiative[1] that has provided considerable funding for public acquisition of natural areas, which has preserved forested areas, beach habitat, and other open spaces."

Let me note here that:

1) The great majority of Sonoma County "agriculture" today is grapegrowing, to make wine, and is criticized as "monoculture";

2) The voters have twice approved a sales tax surcharge for the SCAP&OSD, but they can't control its administration by local politicians and their appointees, most of whom represent an entrenched local establishment of businessmen and developers;

3) The OSD has been criticized for spending millions of taxpayer dollars to buy intangible "development rights"--frequently for rural estates in no danger of development--whereas the voters thought the money would be spent to deter urban sprawl in the Santa Rosa Plain, and create greenbelt community separators.

Comments? -- Mukrkrgsj 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good points mukrkrgs. i have made additional edits to attempt to respond to the issues you have advanced. regards. Anlace 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District

Resources section

[edit]

the article section named "Resources" is very strange. it generally offers generic sites....not specific to the county at all. this section should be evaluated critically and most of it dismantled. What the article needs badly is more line note references. Anlace 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently alphabetized the section, and didn't see anything specific to this article. It could be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mukrkrgsj (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Threatened/endangered species

[edit]

Anlace added the sentence, "Endemic endangered species to Sonoma County include the Pitkin Marsh lily, Lilium pardalinum ssp Pitkinense." Shouldn't this go at the end of the preceeding paragraph?

"A number of endangered plants and animals are found in Sonoma County including the California clapper rail, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Northern Red-legged Frog, Sacramento splittail, California freshwater shrimp, Showy Indian clover, Hickman's potentilla, and the Pitkin Marsh lily, Lilium pardalinum ssp Pitkinense."

You've done so much good work here, I hesitate to edit your contributions without consultation. -- Mukrkrgsj 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the distinction here is "endemic". not all the endangered species listed here are endemic, as the Pitkin Marsh lily. Endemic plants have a special meaning to their endemic areas and are worth singling out. Salt marsh harvest mouse and Northern red legged frog are not endemic strictly to sonoma county but occur in a somewhat larger area. moreover i have performed additional edits to note some of the other endemics. regards. Anlace 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the first paragraph doesn't say the plants and animals are "endemic"--i.e., native here and only here. I created the second paragraph to add the "species of special local concern" not only because they had not been listed, but because they are the species of greatest concern to local developers, politicians, and environmentalists.

The lily has not been among the "species of special local concern"; and breaking out the Sebastopol Meadowfoam to note that it's "endemic" destroyed the sense of the paragraph.

I've created a new paragraph to break out the species that are "endemic" here, in the technical sense. "Endemic" is not an everyday word for most people. The Online Dictionary briefly defines it as:

1. Prevalent in or peculiar to a particular locality, region, or people: diseases endemic to the tropics. See Synonyms at native.
2. Ecology Native to or confined to a certain region.

I think most people who use the word use it in the more general first sense. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy, but I would think it would encourage using the word in the sense the average user is likely to understand it. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic (ecology) is a very commonly linked term in Wikipedia; it is used in over 1000 articles, and we certainly dont need to water it down for the Sonoma County article. I have linked it to the proper Wikipedia article. Anlace 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the brief articles on Endemic (ecology), Indigenous (ecology), and Native, to correct some errors and contradictions. If you have time, please review them for accuracy. -- Mukrkrgsj 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered (or extirpated) species I know of include the northern spotted owl, white sturgeon (believed extirpated), marbled murrelets and coho salmon. I would say that I will find sources later, and wanted to note this, until I can find sources, but the article's section on endangered species does not have sources. I'll try to find sources anyway for this section. Isonomia01 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions

[edit]

I have lived in guerneville for almost 16 years, and i have never heard someone call highway 116 "Guerneville Highway." I have heard pocket canyon and 116 but not Guerneville HighwayJollyjoegiant 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy 116 goes through a plethora of name changes. It runs from Hwy 1 on the coast east to Guerneville. When it reaches Guerneville, it is called "Main Street from the Safeway to the second stoplight. From the second stoplight, it makes a right turn southeast and becomes Pocket Canyon Rd. to downtown Forestville, where it is called "Front Street." It turns right again at the elementary school and heads toward Sebastopol. This section is the Gravenstein Hwy North. and it called this down to Cotati, except where it passes through Sebastopol. There it called Healdsburg Avenue up to the church/Safeway. Then it makes another right turn and becomes North Main Street. It then changes to South Main after crossing Bodega Hwy. When it rejoins northbound traffic, it becomes Gravenstein Hwy South to Cotati. Then it runs along Hwy 101 to Petaluma, exits and goes east to Sonoma where it endures more name changes through Napa County and onward.

There is no Guerneville Hwy, but there is a Guerneville Rd. from Hwy 101 in Santa Rosa to Gravenstein Hwy N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.217.50 (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. And I am changing the article to reflect this. Isonomia01 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. There are numerous short sections, and lists, and the use of citations is insufficient (lots of unsourced sections). While 100% of the article does not need to be cited for GA status, important information, such as numbers & statistical figures, and information that is likely to be challenged, should be. There should generally be at least a couple of citations in each main section with no 'citation needed' or other warning tags. Furthermore, citations should be formatted per WP:CITE, and external link (non-inline) citations should be converted to inline format.

The lead section should provide a good summary of the article as a whole. It would help to review WP:LEAD for guidelines on how to improve this.

Subsection titles should ideally be short and concise. there are several subsection titles which could be written better (e.g. 'geography' instead of 'geography and environment'). See WP:MSH for pertinent guidelines here. I would also recommend changing the order of sections a bit; ideally, it would help to start with the etymology section, followed by history, then geography, demographics, and economy. Beyond that, the order is negotiable, but many geography-related articles seem to follow this general introduction of sections, as the information contained in them is usually sought after by readers first.

Some information about climate should be added to the geography section.

The history section is way too short, and completely uncited. The table with individual national flags in it doesn't seem to be adding much to the content, and the information in it might be better done as prose. The flag icons can pretty much go without any major loss to the article (they may look cool, but in the end, it's just image-cruft, and really just adding to increased download times for the page).

The etymology section seems to have good information, but could be rewritten and condensed a bit. Try to avoid the repetition of the phrase 'according to' in back-to-back paragraphs.

The demographics section just contains bot-generated census 2000 data, which is acceptable at a minimum, but doesn't go into too much detail beyond basic census data. A better discussion of the different ethnic groups and people of the area, and how they interact could be added, and the bot-generated text should be rewritten.

The government section has the minimum necessary information, but more could be provided about politics and significant issues. Where's the county seat? The external link references should be converted to inline format.

The cities and towns section is just one big list in an ugly table with lots of red links. It might be better to eliminate this section entirely, and make a template with the names of the major cities and towns in it, in smaller font. Minor 'census-designated places' don't need to be listed. You could also move this to a list on a separate page, linked to under the 'see also' section.

Places of interest and transportation are just lists. These should be converted to prose. Consider renaming 'places of interest' to 'culture', and talk more about the overall culture of the region. The little highway marker images in the 'transportation' section should be removed as well, for the same reasons as the aforementioned flag icons. Try to reduce the use of 2nd/3rd level headings.

Try to reduce the 2nd level headings under economy as well, instead talking about the economy in such a way that everything is mentioned together. Each individual segment of the economy doesn't need it's own subsection header. Discuss the overall economy here, without going into super-minute details of individual industries. The 'see main article' links need to be wikified according to the manual of style.

The politics section contains a single table with no prose to put any of that information into context. The table appears to contain presidential election results for the county by who voted for what party, which doesn't say squat about the actual local politics, and is really not very notable with regards to the individual county (it could go). I would think politics should be better covered with the government section anyway, so merge the section with government.

Education is just a list. Should be converted to prose. Merge the information about the library system into a single section called 'education', since it's all related. Lists of schools are also only a small part of a discussion on education. The section should cover more information, like the population and demographics of the student population, overall quality of the school system, maybe some information on popular courses of study at the universities, etc.

You could probably cover law enforcement and crime as a brief paragraph in the government section as well.

If Hollywood is a major part of the industry of sonoma county, I would think that the 'film locations' section could be merged with 'economy'. It's not necessary to list every film that was ever filmed (in whole or in part) in the county, as that is better done with a linked list. Instead, discuss some of the more significant films, such as major films that contributed to the growth of the entertainment sector of the economy, in prose.

The external links section also appears to be a bit long. Consider pruning down to the essential links only, and eliminating any linkspam. It might help to review WP:EL for guidelines on this.

I found several manual of style issues throughout the article, so I think it would help to review WP:MOS for tips on formatting.

Hope this helps improve the article. Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Statement on Agricultural Production appears unsupported

[edit]

The introduction states that "In 2002 Sonoma County ranked as the second county in the United States in agricultural production.[1] As early as 1920 Sonoma County was ranked as the eighth most productive U.S county,[2] " However, the PDF linked to does not support that statement. The 2002 total value of agricultural products sold data from the 2002 Census of Agriculture County Profile of the United States Department of Agriculture, California Agricultural Statistics Service, indicates that Sonoma County is 16th in California and 32nd in the United States. The data is available at:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/ca/cp06097.PDF

50n0m4 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northernmost in SF Bay Area

[edit]

I have undone the edit made from 75.72.92.166 claiming Sonoma County as the northernmost in the Bay Area. Sonoma County's northernmost point is at about 38°51'10.54"N, and the southernmost at about 38°4'23.71". Napa County's northernmost point is at about 38°51'51.28", and the southernmost at 38° 9'20.05" making it further north on the whole. Given that the Bay Area article includes Napa, we can't make a claim for Sonoma.Ibadibam (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Movies

[edit]

I noticed that the movie section sent my eyes to the list area first, rather than the paragraph above it. In other words, I found myself asking "Where is the listing of The Birds?". I had to mentally search the area before realizing that they were listed in the above paragraph. It's just the way that section attracts the eyes, does anyone mind if I try to fix it up a little bit? This Article used to be a lot prettier, and I think that with a little work, we can get it up to good article status or better. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Sonoma County, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Sonoma County, 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) 22:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Sonoma County, 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) 07:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to Archive

[edit]

I intend to archive this talk page, or most of it, per the following protocols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Isonomia09 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections on the talk page are still relevant, such as the GA review, and recently added sections. Isonomia01 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Corruption

[edit]

There are multiple incidents of pretty horrific government corruption. Some examples include the Mayor of Windsor being accused by 12 different women of a pattern of rape and sexual assault. These women are very credible and include multiple politicians, including a deputy district attorney for the county and fellow Windsor council-member, who accused Mr. Foppoli of putting a date rape drug in her drink, raping her in a wine tasting room, filming it, and then trying to blackmail her. Because of the 'conflict of interest', the local DA's office forwarded the case to the Attorney General's office under Rob Bonta, but it has been sitting on their desk for over 2 years. Another example is that there was a literal/veritable torture ring in the Sonoma County jail where there is video evidence uploaded to YouTube by the victims' attorney, Izaak Schwaiger, of the 4-6 deputies often wearing ski masks, riot gear, no name tags, and carrying a shotgun with them, and subjecting the inmates to "pain compliance" techniques. I struggle to word this in an encyclopedic manner, but it is obvious from the videos that the deputies did this with the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering. My understanding is that Court documents meet Wikipedia standards on sources of what people said. According to Court documents, the inmates alleged that their heads were slammed against the ground and against door frames, and one inmate sustained internal bleeding. The following is very graphic and may not be suitable for Wikipedia due to that, but that inmate allegedly lost control of his bowels, defecated, and then was forced into underwear several sizes too small for him, and then was put in a suicide watch room without being allowed to wash, and was not allowed to see medical staff for several days. To be very, very clear, this is all easily verifiable with news articles. It was a 2015 case in Sonoma County that went to Federal District Court, and I have the Court documents. There was a policy called "Yard Counseling" or "Behavior Counseling" endorsing this behavior on the part of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office that was in place until 2018, and the news articles about this can be found by searching for the keywords: "Sonoma County Yard Counseling 2015". I am choosing not to name the victims out of respect for their rights. There were several other incidents as well indicating a large degree of government corruption. Various other examples, along with supportive sources, can be provided. Isonomia09 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to consolidate sources, provide them on this talk page, wait a reasonable period of time for review, maybe start a draft outside the article for the sake of allowing other editors to review the proposed content, and then start editing the article. Other editors are welcome to review my work and provide suggestions for making it encyclopedic, objective, and neutral. Please do not delete this section on this talk page without notice, as doing that is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. I am open to hearing people out regarding suggestions. Thank you. Isonomia09 (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isonomia09: Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding attack pages. These articles will be speedily deleted, and users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all input and notice of things to be wary about, and am open to discussion, guidance and review, thank you. I will note that you are the one who deleted my section on the talk page before and threatened me with a block (on the talk page for my user space). After reviewing the "attack page" reference, I think that my proposal would objectively not qualify as turning the article into an attack page. While the edits I intend to make are "negative" in nature, I would also argue that the articles I intend to edit are entirely positive, rather than neutral, and the additions I intend to make (with careful regard for reliable secondary sources) make the articles more neutral. I do appreciate your oversight and providing the references to be wary of, and can respect your alternative viewpoint. Isonomia09 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the project you propose would run afoul of Wikipedia's policies on original research and synthesis. Wikipedia relies heavily on reliable secondary sources that have already done the analysis you seem to propose. This helps Wikipedia to determine that something is verifiable and notable. It is beyond Wikipedia's scope to take on those tasks itself. If there's a possibility of getting the information you mention here into the encyclopedia, it would be by finding a reliable source that has already published it. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples I gave above have already been extensively published in sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (credible news companies). See the Wikipedia article on Dominic Foppoli, for example. I appreciate the references. I have not read the "synthesis" article yet, and will re-review the reliable source page, and secondary sources page. Isonomia09 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sources on 2015 Torture Ring:

https://abc7news.com/sonoma-county-jail-correctional-deputies-beat-inmates-filed-a-lawsuit-attorney-izaak-schwaiger/1018775/

https://sonomasun.com/2022/01/12/explosive-charges-of-systemic-racism-brutality-in-the-sonoma-county-sheriffs-office/

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/sonoma-county-sheriff-offices-sued-for-alleged-torture-beatings-of-jail-inmates/65366/

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Suit-charges-inmates-were-beaten-tortured-at-6553508.php

The Sheriff's Office lied that it didn't happen. (See ABC7News Source.) They lied about the existence of the videos. The attorney for the victims then got the videos (sources below), and then the Sheriff's Office settled for 1.75 million dollars. Acts of torture were specifically condoned by a policy called "yard counseling" or "behavior counseling (see source below). Sonoma County did not address the fact that their own official written policies endorsed torture until three years later. In the meantime, other incidents occurred where people in custody were allegedly tortured, and the Sheriff's Office criminally destroyed evidence and lied (this can be supported with public court documents). All the deputies who participated in the incident are still employed today. Anyone can check the names on the Federal Lawsuit against the database on TransparentCalifornia.com. They are all making around $250,000 a year.

Additional sources:

https://www.youtube.com/@izaakschwaiger1884/videos

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sonoma+county+yard+counseling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smKq5Dpf3YI

The above video where former Sheriff Rob Giordano discusses the 2015 torture ring contains lies stated by Mr. Giordano. He states that "nobody was injured". The victims sustained brain damage and internal bleeding.

The only statement I've made here that I no longer currently have a source to support is that the Sheriff's Office lied about the existence of the videos. It's probably in the Court documents somewhere, but I saw a video press release made by the attorney for the victims, and can't find it any more.

More sources:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/jail-guards-beat-humiliated-sonoma-county-jail-federal-lawsuit/104173/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/lawsuit-claims-sonoma-county-jail-inmates-suffered-5-hour-beating-at-hands/

Isonomia01 (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 incident shooting protestors in the face and heads with rubber bullets and plastic/rubber grenades:

In May 2020, the one of the victims of the 2015 torture ring (Marqus Martinez) was shot in the face with a "stingball" (explosive plastic and rubber) grenade, which was shot at high velocity from a grenade launcher from an officer who was hiding on a rooftop from close range. Several other protestors were also shot with rubber bullets in the head. The grenade exploded on contact and caused horrific injury to Martinez, shattered his teeth and blew fragments of his teeth through his tongue and into the flesh of his mouth. The incident was live-videoed by Martinez, who was unaware that he was being targeted by law enforcement. The video was uploaded to YouTube by his attorney Izaac Schwaigger.

https://www.radical-guide.com/local-indigenous-tribal-leader-hospitalized-due-to-santa-rosa-police-department-violence/

https://kpfa.org/episode/flashpoints-june-8-2020/

2019 killing of David Ward:

Charles Blount, a deputy for Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, applied a carotid artery choke hold on David Ward, while Ward was being tasered, and then, while applying the carotid artery choke hold, and while Ward was still being tasered, slammed Ward's head into the top of the door panel on Ward's car. Ward died. Ward had reported his car stolen days back but had not reported that he had regained possession of the car. Deputies allege that he did not immediately pull over. On the video, Ward informs the deputies that he is the "injured party". Blount had a history of misconduct including (amongst other complaints) using a choke hold on Celeste Moon in a jaywalking case, and then committing perjury about it in Court. That incident was also filmed unbeknownst to Blount. This was after other complaints to the County Supervisors, IOLERO, and the Sheriff's Office that the Sheriff's Office was using the hold recklessly and that the choke hold was well-known to be lethal, on people who were being compliant. It was admitted in Court by Sheriff's Office employee and policy-writer James Naugle, in another case, that the Sheriff's Office did not train deputies to limit the amount of time to apply the hold for.

The Wroth brothers:

In 2013, Esa Wroth was tasered approximately 30 times, as well as punched. The incident occurred in the booking area. Esa Wroth stated that he was tortured and almost died in videoed news reports. He asked for 3 million dollars won a settlement for 1.25 million. In 2017, his brother, Branch Wroth was tasered over and over to death by law enforcement.

Sources will be consolidated to support the above sections soon, as well as the Dominic Foppoli serial rape case.

Isonomia01 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the numbers in the "Cities by population and crime rates" represent?

[edit]

There is a table under the "crime" section of the article called "Cities by population and crime rates". The numbers/boxes are not labeled, and it is impossible to know what those numbers are intended to represent. If nobody clarifies or adds labels to the boxes within a reasonable amount of time, I am going to delete this table. The table needs a row added at the top with labels explaining what the numbers in the columns below the labels represent. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cities by population and voter registration table missing labels

[edit]

(Please forgive me if I'm going about this incorrectly, I'm new here!)

The table under the header "Cities by population and voter registration" does not include any labels at the top. It lists city names down the side, and there are multiple columns with percentages and numbers, but those columns are not labeled as to what data they're showing. I have no idea how to do that kind of coding, but the table is sort of meaningless if no one knows what the columns are. Can someone with the right skills please add that info? AlisonroseCA (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonoma_County,_California&oldid=1252383227"