Talk:San Bernardino County, California

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

We must stop the vandalizm on this board.
Somebody again attempted to damage this article.

Someone is obsessed with trying to add opinionated and non-NPOV info, and attempted to delete new information that has been added the past few weeks, and I caught it and reinstated the newer, NPOV info.

Crime section is deleted, but not gang violence
San Bernardino county isn't about crime or gangs, but a place where upper-class and white-collar professionals have moved to in lagrge numbers. There are white supremacists in the county though, like the California Golden Knights of the Ku Klux Klan based in Fontana and the National Association for Advancement of white people in Rialto (san Bernardino). I recall former representative David Duke, a self-claimed racist and former klansman bought a mansionette in Fontana. There is some Aryan Nations/Neo-Nazi gang activity like the Nazi Low Riders in Ontario/Chino known for carjacking, drug trafficking and harassment of minorities. We need to write new topics and more articles on San Bernardino county, not limited to the negative. + 207.200.116.201 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is just so wrong, and is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community
Why the desire to protect/lock an article that is so biased against San Bernardino County?

There are lots of great places in San Bernardino County.

The gang section is just unacceptable, and yet is protected by someone out of the country who doesn't even live in San Bernardino County?

What happened to the talk page that used to be here, and had protests against this smearing?

This article, or more accurately, this smear campaign against San Bernardino County, is a disgrace to the Wikipedia Community!!!


 * As an objective third party, I can't say I find this article unreasonable. It states unbiased facts -- if there are positive aspects of San Bernardino County that you feel are neglected, please add them. However, removing content just because you don't like it is considered antisocial in just about any online community.


 * While there are a number of contentious articles on Wikipedia that acts as hotspots for manifest bias, this genuinely doesn't seem to be one of them :)


 * Adrian Lamo 04:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased? (Thanks for reading.)
Thanks for responding.

Just as one example, can you really say this is "unbiased"?

Quote: "San Bernardino County is infamous for its gang activity."

This is not only absurd, it's just plain wrong. The county is huge, and has many nice places, and yes, a few rough places, too, but it certainly is not quote "infamous".

This section really needs to be rewritten, as numerous people correctly pointed out on the previous talk page before it was deleted just recently.

Thanks for reading.




 * Well, you're right that the section sticks out, which is unfortunate. Some of the language could be improved, too. I've edited that section ever so slightly to make it a bit more neutral, but can't (and wouldn't) outright remove factual content. I am of the belief that as the article evolves, the gang section will become less prominent. Is there anything specific you want to add to this article?


 * Adrian Lamo 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be rewritten as some places in san bernardino county are infamous for gang activity? I live in rialto, and we have 1.5 times the national average for violence but that doesn't make it infamous for it's gang activity. san berdoo is the eighteenth most dangerous city in the us and they're only a couple miles away but rialto is much safer it seems. showing just how spotty the gang violence is. - signed by anon IP


 * The article has a section about incidence of crime in the county back in 2006, but where did the information come from? It's unsourced for one thing and the other, there's concern the crime activity issue in San Bernardino is overemphasized or biased against the county. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better already. I'm impressed.
That's much better. I'm impressed with Wikipedia.

I think it's still a bit harsh, though.

I agree, the best way is to further develop the article.

Like you said, I'll look up some more information, and be back later to contribute..


 * Sorry I don't know enough about the area to immediately do more. I'll add this page to my watchlist, and remember to add content if I come across anything that seems worth adding.


 * Articles aren't intended to flatter or demean any topic, place, or person. Thanks for your patience while this one develops, and for taking the time to state an opinion :)


 * Cheers. Adrian Lamo 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We must stop the vandalizm on this board.
We must stop the vandalizm on this board.

Somebody again attempted to damage this article.

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


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

Should we eliminate the Crime section?
Maybe we should just eliminate the crime section? It looks like several people have been modifying it, some with NPOV and others with an opinionated POV, and it still isn't a NPOV. Also, it doesn't seem to add much to the article.


 * I don't think it is so bad. There certainly is crime in the county. I'm not sure what happened to the one reference but we can fix that. If there is a way to make it more NPOV, then go for it. -Will Beback 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * the crime stats needs to be moved to public safety. none of the other southern california counties have crime set up like so. it should be in the public safety. if not the article does not read well.Javiern (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Repaired with NPOV
The page was again damaged by someone with a biased agenda (the pro-gang troll), and I repaired with the more NPOV on file.


 * It looks as if you replaced material that had at least one source with material that has none. That isn't progress. Please provide sources to support your assertions. Please do not remove sourced material provided by others. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain time?
The time zone currently shows up as "Mountain," although the source (correctly) says Pacific? - signed by anon IP


 * Incorrect, unless you referring to the Colorado River where the time zone boundary is, only the Arizona side is Mountain time and does not observe daylight savings time. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on meaning...
Does "The county is larger in area than the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware combined. Any of those states could be replaced in the list by New Jersey, Vermont, or New Hampshire." mean what it appears to? If so, does anyone else think that that happens to be the most completely awkward phrasing possible? 68.39.174.238 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alaska borough comparison
San Bernardino County is the largest "county" in the US, which the article states, but it is not the largest "county-equivalent," because several Alaska boroughs are larger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boroughs_and_census_areas_in_Alaska

This is already mentioned in the San Bernardino County article, but whoever wrote it designated the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area as the largest county-equivalent in the US, which is arguably not correct at all. Like much of Alaska, Yukon-Koyukuk is in the vast "unorganized borough" of Alaska and thus not part of a county-equivalent.

The largest then would be the North Slope Borough: North Slope Borough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Slope_Borough%2C_Alaska

I'm going to change the article to reflect that, but I'm just putting out the reasons why now, just in case Yukon-Koyukuk was someone's baby.

By the way, as someone who grew up in Orange County, I've always liked San Bernardino County — the vast, open desert is way cool, and the people I know in San Berdo's "Inland Empire" cities are all great people. Why someone would come to Wikipedia to trash San Bernardino County is beyond me. Sure, there's some crime, but that's true everywhere in California, including Orange County (and not just Santa Ana). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushibo (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Size
I understand that it is big, but the intro is meant to summarize the content of the article, and a whole paragraph two paragraphs in the intro telling us just how big San Bernardino County is comparatively are a little excessive. I have stripped most of it out... it was a little interesting, but it was a bit repetitive and the relevance is debatable. --Node (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still (or is again) too big. A sentence saying it's the biggest in the country would suffice. Lexicon (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Named for....
The county is clearly named after the city of san bernardino, just like riverside county is named after riverside city, the same is for San Diego County. NOw the city is named after Saint Bernardine, not county, see source/reference. House1090 (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * nonsense...bernadino is the namesake for both by extension. --emerson7 05:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * please reference Infobox U.S. County for template guidance. --emerson7 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Spanish and Indian place names of California: their meaning and their romance the name comes from Saint Bernardinus, and was initially applied to the peak before the founding of the town. The county, peak, city, and many other items get their name from the Saint. List of counties in California uses the same source text and covers all the county name etymologies. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
A recent edit was made about a possible change of county seat. It appears that a newspaper columnist "heard some say that it would be good if the county seat moved", and wrote this article. I do not believe this kind of speculation by a single person should be included in an encyclopedia article. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And I quote "...local interests in the county's West End have argued for the county seat to be relocated from San Bernardino to "the more viable and growing cities of Ontario or Rancho Cucamonga" (their words, not mine.) They have even proposed renaming the county "Arrowhead County." This is not by 1 person but by many people wanting to change the county seat to a ciy in the western end area of San Bernardino County. I think that whether or not the city allows the county to build the so called government tower, the faith of Sb as having the county seat is on the line. May I say that the writer of the article is involved with the city, I believe he is on the city council. House1090 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's an editorial by the city attorney intended to sway the reader that letting the county build a new center in SB would forestall "relocating the county seat." There is nothing to suggest that anything like this is currently being considered, or that it would be "controversial" if it were. So, WP:NOTSOAP and WP:NOTCRYSTAL both apply. Amerique dialectics  01:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why I put it was to let threader know that there are people wanting to change the county seat and county name. House1090 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But Penman doesn't name them, so we don't know who they are, or where he is quoting from. It's just a rumor at this point, an artificial controversy, designed to get the reader to think: "the city better let the county build wherever it wants or the county could hold a vote to move the seat elsewhere" kind of thing. Amerique dialectics  01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I see your point. I will see if I find any other sources about a county seat move, if not I will delete it today. House1090 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i heard both county relocation and renaming idea. from the history books located in the county libraries, the name change is an old idea from the early 1900. the county seat relocation almost happened in the early 1920's. it would have been moved to the big bear area(there was a vote and the relocation idea lost by less than 10 votes), the current proposal is because this is the way of getting the county to relocate its offices. the county wants to be in a new building. its been proposed by the city council of san bernardino to take the spot where currently the falling apart known mall as carousel mall. they would tear the mall down and build a high rise just like the city civic center were the city offices are located75.26.156.205 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

county flag
why is there no image of the county flag75.26.156.205 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

quiero tomar un examen para el certified food worker''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.1.230 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternate name - St Berdoo?
As a student of etymology, I am fascinated by this abbreviation. Where does this name come from? Googling this name shows mainly tatoo references which doesn't seem likely :) Old_Wombat (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Temecula inclusion
I couldn't help but notice that the table of companies derived from the Chamber of Commerce statistics includes Temecula, even though Temecula is actually part of Riverside County, not San Bernardino County. However it doesn't seem right to edit data derived from an external source. thoughts? Keithh (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed this as well, but I was mostly baffled as to how the County of Riverside would employ more people in San Bernardino County than SB County itself. Upon further review of the cited source, it appears that these stats are for the Inland Empire as a whole.  That should probably be clarified on the page and more accurate statistics should replace these. (I'm sure they must be available through the state or county websites, right?)  Jayfr (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Climate
Not a bad article, but it is missing a "climate" subsection under geography. (And, no, I don't have one in my back pocket!)

BTW, you could probably move towns/cities under "government" if you wished. Student7 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Bogus employment figures
The "County of Riverside" is the largest employer in the San Bernadino County ? Oh really ? How does that work, then ? This defies basic credibility. Those figures come from the website of the San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce. Is the geographical scope of the San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce, precisely coterminous with the actual county ?Eregli bob (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Another clue as to the accuracy of the Chamber of Commerce list: UC Riverside is listed twice, with different numbers of employees, and that duplication does come from the original, cited source. Checking the Chamber of Commerce Website, that source list seems to be a crude cut-and-paste of plain text in typewriter font into a Web template, with poor results. It also appears that the list is static, as the content copied to Wikipedia in 2012 is unchanged at the source in 2014, and may in fact be older than 2012. Although this is a published source, it may not be reliable. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, in addition to the article's cited source here, the Chamber of Commerce Website duplicates that list here, with somewhat better formatting. That second copy includes a one-line introduction which may answer the question posed by Eregli bob:
 * "Below is a list of major employers in San Bernardino and the surrounding areas"
 * (emphasis added) 50.181.30.121 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on San Bernardino County, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110520021630/http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_homeless26.3830aad.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_homeless26.3830aad.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110829191358/http://www.akspl.org/history.html to http://www.akspl.org/history.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

map?
could we not get a proper map of the county, on the article? or perhaps more than 1; topography, towns & roads, climate, etc....

Lx 121 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (5 years later) Can we please add a proper map to this article, which shows where the settlements are located? The "Big Red Map" is simply not cutting it. Let's strive to make this project as useful and encyclopedic as possible, and not ignore valid comments such as the one above for years at a time. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We are all tasked with making this article as good as possible. Anybody can edit (or, to be fair, can raise a question). Does the above writer have a good, noncopyrighted, source for such a map? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Cities in the San Bernardino Valley/Geography
The list of cities in the San Bernardino Valley doesn't include Montclair, incorporated as Monte Vista(1956), name changed to Montclair(1958). Montclair, in San Bernardino County, is bounded on the west by Pomona and Claremont, on the north by Upland,on the east by Ontario, and on the south by Chino.

I don't have a source. I grew up in Montclair and just know these facts, as anyone from the west end of San Bernardino County, with any sense of geography, would. If Upland, Ontario, and Chino are in the San Bernardino Valley, so is Montclair. ''

03:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Bruin75 (talk)On the other hand, on the Wikipedia Pomona Valley page, it lists the San Bernardino County cities of Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, and Ontario as being in the Pomona Valley.

On the Wikipedia Upland page it says Upland is in the San Bernardino Valley but no mention of the Pomona Valley.Bruin75 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Election results gone.
Is there a reason as to why the election results table for past elections were wiped from the article? Will it be re-added? SSoto21 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not encyclopedic information. WP:DIRECTORY applies - Wikipedia is not a repository of local voter data, simple as that. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that it's not encyclopedic? I've never viewed this info as not encyclopedic. SSoto21 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure how directory applies, or how that info isn't encyclopedic. glman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. That info is absolutely encyclopedic. It’s also on damn near every single county’s page, so there’s clearly an unwritten consensus that it is. I don’t think one random guy’s dissenting opinion should run the day here. Mcleanm302 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A consensus of editors at WP:County did not suggest including detailed year-by-year election results. I agree with User:Cristiano Tomás that these are unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus on the general list of what should be included doesn't amount to consensus that things outside of that shouldn't be included. Why do you feel they are unencyclopedic and unnecessary? glman (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a pattern of highly-active Wikipedia members of a certain opinion targeting various topics and arguing with subject matter experts that WP:DIRECTORY is a reason to remove hard-to-find information from Wikipedia for readability's sake. I disagreed with the notion in the Sony EXMOR drama from a couple years back, and I still disagree with it. This will be a test as to whether the polysci Wikipedian community has enough clout to outvote this wrong and harmful view. --71.197.6.249 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And that one random guy definitely shouldn't be making a significant policy change without a consensus. It's a pretty huge change that should require voluminous input from a variety of editors and users.  It also shouldn't happen at a page level. Sviscusi (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There may be a different outcome this time, but be prepared for admin page-active Wikipedians to dig their heels in on this. I really think there should be more deference to subject matter expert needs. Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely encyclopedic. That's insane to say otherwise. Page 209 from 1860's The Political Text-Book or Encylopedia for precedent DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are also literally 5 year old templates e.g. Template:United_States_presidential_election_results_table_header behind this data, that's as consensus as it gets. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is absolutely encyclopedic. And it is as descriptive in its own way as demographic data, which is also included through the years. It is also the sort of information that can be hard to find after some years. It should definitely stay. TopDomino (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Knowing how a county votes in Presidential elections is arguably just as important as almost all other demographic data such as race and registered voter percentage. It would significantly reduce the ability to understand a county from this page if all demographic data was removed. Orange1861 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a political scientist and I literally cited this data as one of the great accomplishments of Wikipedia to a friend the other day. This table needs to stay and if it does not, it will damage the quality of Wikipedia going forward and also hurt public knowledge. Jacob F. H. Smith (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Obviously there comes a point where you can't display *all* relevant electoral information, like how a county has voted in downballot races, but presidential election history is a great summary of a county's political history, and I argue is equivalent to other demographic data, which nobody takes issue with being displayed on county pages despite WP:DIRECTORY. There's a longstanding, years-long consensus that county pages display presidential election history. XP6287 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've used the county presidential elections results table as a sort of Green Book when travelling through parts of rural America, as data going back to whether certain Southern counties had an uptick in third party votes when Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond or George Wallace ran in 1948 and 1968 respectively is a useful snapshot of a location's political identity on top of being potentially lifesaving information. You are exactly right, this information is important and must be kept. Metallicchair (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Election data is absolutely valuable information that can provide encyclopedic insight into a county. I agree with Elli - the solution isn't to purge the tables, it's to expand the county's written political history. ItsAstronomical (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This information is absolutely encyclopaedic, and needs to stay. The consensus on this matter can't be overturned because one person deems it unnecessary. 67.215.45.54 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion should not be happening at the page level. There has been clear, yearslong consensus that these election results table are encyclopedic in nature to merit inclusion in local county pages. Pretty much every county page in the U.S. has one. A single editor can't just decide they want to remove it on one page and insist in this manner. Again, there is clear, long-standing, site-wide consensus on this matter. This Page's talk page is not the right forum for seeking a change in consensus. --haha169 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to say that won't come off as insulting, so I'll just say it: this is austere nonsense based on a stretched reading of WP:DIRECTORY. These stats take literally nothing away from the articles' readability, and contribute plenty. I get that "table of stats" is not the most aesthetically pleasing thing on an article, but we're overcorrecting here. The table gives you an idea of the partisan composition of the county over time, which is vital encyclopedic knowledge. It's not a slippery slope, we can stop with just Presidential results. We should revert the previous consensus and include them. Carlp941 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Political Science scholar here. I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said so I'll keep my comments as short as I can, but the notion that this knowledge isn't encyclopedic is not only insane but flatly wrong. The definition of encyclopedic is comprehensive- what is more comprehensive than this? To claim otherwise is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously.
 * Election data that is encyclopedic while also not having the most unusable design on planet Earth is brutally hard to come by. The election community and profession STILL does not have a comprehensive tool that covers all bases, and Wikipedia is basically the best shot we have. Deleting this information which, without Wikipedia, is *very* annoying to gather if not outright impossible, would be an extreme disgrace to the election community, scholars of political science, and also upset public knowledge such that it would be easier for election misinformation to get out.
 * If your entire purpose is to sit on Wikipedia all day and threaten data that is barely available anywhere else easily and is crucial to tons of people, I genuinely believe you should never touch a Wikipedia article again. 168.91.187.224 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's most definitely encyclopedic. If you think it isn't, the community will have to reach a consensus. Until then, don't start clearing sections of articles. Tritario (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree generally that removal isn't an improvement. An ideal county page would detail the county's political history in prose, and including a table of presidential election results would be a logical aide to that. The fact that most counties don't yet have the in-depth political history in prose isn't a reason to remove the table though; it's a reason to expand the prose! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want some background, you should look up the admin page discussions related to Sony EXMOR; there's probably been other communities that have been affected by general pushes for divesting information tables. I would summarize it as subject matter expert needs have been de-prioritized according to the wishes of general Wikipedia editors for readability / terseness. Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * EXMOR is different in that there has not been significant coverage of individual sensors. There has been significant coverage of every presidential election in San Bernardino County, but one should not have to cite the article in the San Bernardino Sun after the election has been certified as a source, that would incredibly clutter up the article with a list of 30 references. Also there have been mnany articles referencing San Bernardino County's partisan swing, which do not exist for EXMOR (much like there have been articles in tech media detailing new Intel or AMD chips). Calwatch (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The election results table should absolutely not be removed. Actual election results are more vital to understanding the politics of a county than voter registration or nonpartisan local offices. These tables have also been on every county page for years at this point. Jon698 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to keep piling on and beat a dead horse but I agree that including election results is absolutely encyclopedic and WP:DIRECTORY doesn't apply. WP:NOTSTATS is also not applicable (the statistics are explained), although a sub-article on the politics of San Bernardino County could arguably be a better place to house the data. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will note that it is vital to keep county voting data to prevent claims of election fraud. Especially in this day and age of elections denialism… having an open source to refute these claims is important. Worst case scenario is removing this voting data and it can enable a political group to cite a county voted for Candidate A when the county voted for Candidate B. 63.152.27.123 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with previous statements that election results for counties should be considered demographic information; their inclusion is as justified as that of census data. Election results provide some information on how a county's population has changed over time- for example, the election results for Cobb County, Georgia can help demonstrate how quickly the county has suburbanized over the last few decades and how that suburbanization has caused shifts in the county's politics. Removing election results would have a noticeable effect on the amount of demographic information in Cobb County's article, as well as all other county articles. Chaidan (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Removing them strikes me as completely unjustified, given the high information density of these tables, and the fact that they can be collapsed down to take up less space. I see no reason why we should overturn so many years of precedent. Cpotisch (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just like to state my opposition to removing election information from county pages. That information strikes me as just as encyclopaedic as information on demographics or the barebones of history you’d expect from a county page. Election information has been on county pages since Moses wore short pants, and it seems most peculiar to strike them off the whim of a single editor working outwith the years-long consensus on this matter. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also like to oppose the removal of voting data. It is far more accessible on here than if it is only available at the town hall.
 * Also definitely encyclopedic as it gives a summary of the political history of the area. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 05:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Enough has been said already, but I'd also like to register my opposition to these changes in the hopes that this will serve as a reminder of what a terrible idea it is for one or two users to unilaterally seek to overturn a long-standing sectoral consensus based on their own over-zealous interpretation of a general rule.--Leptictidium (mt) 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just like to comment that there are some IPs and new accounts here because of this Twitter post Personisinsterest (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just want to make everyone aware that there's some WP:canvassing going on from Twitter. https://x.com/MikeMcLean00/status/1805690401938096150 - Di (they-them) (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate these weird Twitter people that look at articles from the outside and think they know what's best. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

= :I can't really add much, but it's clear to me that keeping the election results are absolutely within the realm of keeping Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. There is a clear consensus to me on this talk page on the view, and removing it would override years of precedent involving a large number of voices and people, in lieu of the views and voices of one. Walpole2019 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)