Talk:Portola Valley, California

2000 Census

This page has some painfully obvious errors that I don't exactly know how to address other than bringing up in this discussion page. Firstly, it needs to cite its source for the 2000 census. That leads to the second problem. Am I the only one to seriously doubt that the average male yearly income is zero dollars, whereas the average female yearly income is just over 92,000 dollars? I know many male workers in Portola Valley anyways so this is clearly false. I'd be much obliged if someone could locate the original source for this data and correct this horrendous factual error.

The error has been fixed. The problem was that the US Census data listed the male income at 100,000+, whereas the bot that was used to fill in the data was expecting a number without any extra symbols. BlankVerse 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Portola Valley seal.png

Image:Portola Valley seal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill Lane

A quick poke around Google suggests there's arguably enough information on Bill Lane to produce a separate article on him under the notability criteria. There's already a Bill Lane article in the system, and would require more research, but I figured it was worth mentioning. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wealthiest?

There seems to be an attempt to claim that Portola Valley is "the wealthiest town in America per the US Census". However the cited sources don't seem to support this. First one cannot cite another wikipedia page such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_by_income . Nor does it help that that source lists only California locations and is incomplete. "These Are the 100 Richest Places in America". Bloomberg.com. 5 March 2018. lists Atherton as having the highest average household income. Of course one can argue about median versus average and whether per household or per capita to determine "wealthiest". I'm willing to accept reliable sources and a reasonable definition but none have been given yet. --Erp (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The second source ("Median Annual Household Income". The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.) seems to list values only by state. Townofportolavalley (talk · contribs) needs to better support the claim. Perhaps some subpage of this link is what is being referred to? --Erp (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC) --Erp (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok we now have a source though it is per capita rather than median household or median family income which is used in many other lists (per capita can be affected by live-in versus commuting servants and also number of children). --Erp (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is correct, I do not see the point in arguing (jealous?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Townofportolavalley (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted all the work I put into the article and labeled it a 'minor revision' given that I left the claim of wealthiest alone (except making it clear what was meant by wealthiest). Why remove the citation for why Ormondale school has the name it has or the info on the Alpine Inn (which probably should have its own article). --Erp (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The change by Townofportolavalley should be reverted. Too much good material was removed, and the bit about "wealthiest" is not supported by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We were heading towards an edit war and he did come up with a weak source to which I added some necessary caveats (which he then reverted). I'm not sure what 'wealthiest' should be but median income is probably better than average, given that someone like Bill Gates could move into a small community and immediately make it the wealthiest under the average rule even though everyone else in it earned less than 100,000). I would recommend at least moving it elsewhere in the article because surely Portola Valley has more to offer than bragging about mere wealth. However I think someone else should do it so that it looks less like a fight solely between him and me. --Erp (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I note that the source is now out-of-date so replaced. I note almost all current reports list Atherton as wealthier as well as many other places. --Erp (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Attractions

I've just removed a list of attractions because it was without references and said nothing about why each item was an attraction (and frankly most didn't seem very attractive, i.e., something that people might go out of their way to see, though they might fall in the category of amenities). Each attraction should have at least a short sentence except possibly if it is so well known that it needs no explanation. --Erp (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mostly white or not in the lead?

Given we seem to be have a slow edit war on the article on this issue, we should have a discussion here. Should it be in the lead. I note the 2020 census found 11 African-American/Black people in Portola Valley, 347 people of Asian ancestry, 3,585 White, 452 with multiple racial identities (mostly non-Black), 4 Native American/Alaskan, and 57 other (total population was 4,456). https://data.census.gov/profile/Portola_Valley_town,_California?g=160XX00US0658380#race-and-ethnicity. Erp (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead. There are thousands of towns in America that are mostly white. Whoever thinks they’re the police of adding that repeatedly to the article should probably also do it for the hundreds of thousands of other towns in America where this is the case for consistency. If not, stop adding that in the lead. 2601:647:667F:7AF0:E930:23B0:72D:C488 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we follow what Reliable Sources WP:RS say about organizations/people/towns/etc., and this source: EXPLICITLY calls out the demographic of this town, and also list the reason it is such.

Historically, Portola Valley hasn’t allowed multifamily housing complexes to be built in town. As a result, the community is a homogenous enclave: 75% white (compared to 35% in San Mateo county overall)

When/if other newspapers publish such emphasis on a city/town's demographics, than we will include that information in articles about that town. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple towns in San Mateo county that are whiter than PV. Three towns which I have checked and confirmed do not have this in the headline of their respective pages: Woodside, West Menlo Park, and Ladera. This is not just inconsistent across Wikipedia, it isn’t even consistent with neighboring towns in the county. Your bias against this particular town is clear - to me, you’re violating the standards of Wikipedia by directly targeting this town. Many articles have been published in previous years along the same lines as the random cherry picked article you are “citing” about towns like Woodside, Hillsborough, and Atherton, just to name a few. Multiple towns in Marin county have also been reported on in the same fashion. You can keep blocking people

who disagree with you, but let your hypocrisy be visible to the public. Or like I said above, go spend days scrubbing Wikipedia to consistently do this across the thousands of towns in America where your unnecessary but technically factual take of “mostly white” is true. Because if you don’t, it’s very transparent that your motives are to target this town and you are the one who should be blocked from moderating. 189.250.143.217 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim: "Many articles have been published in previous years along the same lines as the random cherry picked article you are “citing” about towns like Woodside, Hillsborough, and Atherton, just to name a few. Multiple towns in Marin county have also been reported on in the same fashion." - Post links to such articles, than we will add that info to the Wikipedia articles about those cities also. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not my job to teach you how to Google search. You know you are unable to refute my claim, because a simple search of the demographics pages of the towns I listed prove my point. At minimum, I’m glad the public record will always prove your bias and show your pettiness. 2601:647:667F:7AF0:2006:9CE9:9725:885A (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you keep relentlessly changing this article to include mostly white in the lead, I am providing sources that highlight your so called relevant fact in 11 other Bay Area towns - none of these have this in the lead of their towns on Wikipedia. Since you’ve taken it upon yourself to be a crusader of this “cause”, go change it on every page for the towns I’m listing. I would love to see the feedback you receive.

1. Belvedere

2. Woodside

3. San Anselmo

4. Ross

5. Mill Valley

6. Tiberon

7. Los Gatos

8. Lafayette

9. Orinda

10. Clayton

11. Piedmont

“Using this method, the report identifies Belvedere in Marin County and Woodside in San Mateo County as having two of the most segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area in terms of white wealth.”

https://www.kron4.com/news/report-identifies-bay-areas-most-segregated-neighborhoods-of-white-wealth/amp/

“San Anselmo, Ross and Belvedere are the least racially diverse cities and towns in the Bay Area, new census data show.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/27/marin-cities-top-list-of-least-diverse-in-region/amp/

“In contrast, San Anselmo, Mill Valley, Tiberon, Los Gatos, Lafayette, Orinda, Clayton, and Piedmont all stand out as highly affluent and heavily segregated …”

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020#:~:text=In%20contrast%2C%20San%20Anselmo%2C%20Mill,Oakland%20or%20in%20Marin%20County. 2601:647:667F:7AF0:2006:9CE9:9725:885A (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include "mostly white" at the top, considering that many thousands of American cities qualify for that description. Let's simply quote the sources stating racial percentages and the word "homogenous", placing this material further down in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with Binksternet and the IP. There is nothing that warrants a particular call out of this fact in the article's lead, especially because this isn't a particularly notable fact, but a reality shared by a huge number of municipalities across the country. All this can be covered under the demographics section, but the intro is a ridiculous location for it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that we are supposed to "follow the sources", which means say what the sources say. The source I added is specifically noting this characteristic of this town. That makes this information notable. Additionally, per WP:MOSLEAD: "...and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I would say that across America, this is one of those prominent controversies that is getting plenty of news coverage now, (after the Black Lives Matter movement) - the fact that we still have lots of legal economic segregation replacing the explicit race-based segregation.

There is also a lot more notable information about this town which also should be mentioned/summarized in the lead (like history, large number of notable people who live there, etc.) but this doesn't mean that we should suppress demographic info from the lead.

Separately, the lead currently says the town is "wealthy" though there is no sourced statement anywhere in the article giving that description. (The title of the source I added for the new demographic statement uses that characterization.) Why are we saying the town is notable for being "wealthy" (generally considered a good thing) but suppressing the criticism of it being "mostly white" because of its segregationist zoning? ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)