Talk:West Hills, Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Parks

Thanks for all the Neighborhood Park links 'Whisper to me.' Cleaned up entry's details for inviting & positive qualities. Clarified the 'regional' open space parks, with citations, and wiki & external links. ---Look2See1 (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affluent?

West Hills hosts a number of large, highly populated mobile home parks, specifically those in Woolsey Canyon, in addition to a number of neighborhoods closer to the Fallbrook mall that are very far from affluent. I don't think West Hills is the type of district that should have this label. If anything, neighboring Woodland Hills is the affluent district, and West Hills closer to Canoga Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.68.56 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Fit The Definition Of Affluent

I agree with the above poster. The more expensive homes aren't until you get to the hillsides. That is the only affluent area and even then, not all the homes fit into the affluent category. Woodland hill is definitely a better fit.

In response to the poster below

I will concede, as should the poster above me as well. Affluent neighborhoods have specific distinctions such as those as Studio City, and Encino; these neighborhoods are atleast 95% affluent while West Hills comprise of mostly middle class qualities. This is why Sherman Oaks doesn't fit the affluent definition because its mostly middle class while the hills and adjacent Ventura Blvd is affluent. Good schools, trails, and safety are not qualifiers of an affluent neighborhood. There are middle class and even working class neighborhoods that have similar qualities. I do agree that the average income is high, but that wealth is concentrated in the smaller portion of the neighborhood that compose of the smallest population of West Hills. The flats are predominantly middle class. Also the apartments in Woodland hills are luxury and very expensive. This can be scene in Studio City as well where a one bedroom will go for as much as $2,000 a month. I don't agree with the affluent distinction, but I see your passionate about the subject so I will concede.

WEST HILLS IS AFFLUENT

I have to disagree with the above posters,west hills is home to a lot of well to do families,almost all residents are homeowners with a relatively high income,it has great schools,it's very peaceful and safe for families,it's surrounded by the best hiking trails in southern california...ect..I do not see why would you think it does not fit the definition of afflunet,is it because it doesnt have the fake MCmansions on very small lots that are being built everywhere these days?..Mobile homes are also found in malibu and topanga, does that make those areas not affluent too? I also do not see how is west hills closer to canoga park than woodland hills,canoga park borders both west hills and woodland hills,if anything,woodland hills has a higher rate of apartments which means less people own their homes hence less affluence than west hills.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.77.221 (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like editorializing, not neutral

The first sentence seems more like an opinion than a neutral description. For comparison, here is the first sentence for the page of Beverly Hills, a well-known affluent area: "Beverly Hills is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States, surrounded by the City of Los Angeles. It is home to the shopping district Rodeo Drive."

I think it should be given a more neutral point of view.

Melizg (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should tell what makes this neighborhood different from others in the city of Los Angeles, not to compare it to other cities within the county. Note, for example, this lede for South Park, Los Angeles: "South Park is a 1.41-square-mile. low-income neighborhood in South Los Angeles, California. It is notable for its dense concentration of residents, their youthful age range, their high ratio of single parents, their low rate of marriage and their low median household income. South Park is third on the list of Los Angeles city neighborhoods where adults over age 25 failed to finish high school—69.4%. The district has three middle and four elementary schools." GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High income

I substituted the phrase "high-income" for "affluent" in order to help reach a WP:consensus. The source is in Mapping L.A.. I suppose there are other sources, too. I hope all will agree with this approach to the WP: Lead of this article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you've been reverted twice makes it obvious it doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you trying to say that West Hills is not a high-income area? Or that it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an objection to the Los Angeles Times' actual income data from 2008 being incorporated into the body of the article (as used here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Harvard_Heights,_Los_Angeles#Population). The numbers are impersonal. However, when adjectives like affluent (along with high income, low income etc.) are incorporated into the lead, they read subjectively. And this was stated a year ago on the Sherman Oaks Talk page. Phatblackmama (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PBM. I have admired your efforts with the West Adams, Los Angeles pages. I appreciate your contribution with this one. Until it was brought to my attention here, I did not realize that the previous discussion had been closed with the sort of summary that you mentioned. I don't agree with it; in fact, I don't understand the reasoning behind it, but I am not going to fuss about it. There are too many other interesting facets about Los Angeles that bear examining. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible canvassing

Your attention is called to this page. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What, that you left a warning on someone's talk page? To be clear, there is NO concensus building discussion here for someone to be canvassed to. YOU are editing against a community - wide concensus which resulted from an RfC that YOU started. You cannot claim ignorance. You editing crossed the line of WP:TEND quite a while ago. IMO, you should be topic banned from settlement articles. Between your insistence on using poor sourcing and the issues surrounding PUFFERY/PEACOCK in the ledes, you have ceased to be a net plus. John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Magnolia677, BrownHairedGirl, Phatblackmama to this discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John. I think the discussion should be about the article. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see continued slow-motion edit-warring by BeenAroundAWhile, in pursuit of an approach for which they have not gained consensus on the talk page, and which was rejected at an RFC opened by BeenAroundAWhile.

Repeated requests to desist have failed, so it's time to seek enforcement. I will draw up a summary of this long saga, and take it from there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, This issue was brought up by BeenAroundAwhile and heavily discussed over on the Toluca Lake, Los Angeles Talk page, again on the Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles Talk page, and now the West Hills, Los Angeles Talk page. Does this discussion have to make the rounds of every individual Los Angeles neighborhood? Or is it safe to assume that consensus applies to all Los Angeles neighborhoods? Phatblackmama (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phatblackmama AIUI, the whole point of the RFC was to centralise discussion, and make a decision on the principle, in order to avoid repeating the same debate over each suburb. The RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_19#Request_for_comment was closed by Robert McClenon as rough consensus against the inclusion of terms such as "affluent" or "poor" in ledes to articles on cities and towns in general.
So the scope was not just "all Los Angeles neighborhoods", but all settlement articles. And it wasn't restricted to the word "affluent", but all similar terms. The issue is decided, but @BeenAroundAWhile is displaying WP:IDHT behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Affluent Nonsense

I thought we were done with this saga after the passing of one of the principal offenders but it seems a string of IP users has been adding this term to the lede of the article again. Other editors should be aware and revert this vandalism when they see it. I'm unsure if this issue is bad enough to warrant semi-protecting the page or honestly how I as a not terribly active editor would even go about making that happen. For now be alert everyone. Raitchison (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were done with this too. I will add West Hills to my watchlist. Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]