Talk:Santa Paula, California

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Demographics

Current U.S. Census statistics: 55.23% White, 0.41% African American, 1.41% Native American, 0.70% Asian, 0.19% Pacific Islander, 37.37% from other races, and 4.68% from two or more races. 71.19% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.

how can 55.23% be white and 71.19% be Hispanic or Latino of any race?

Because there are white hispanics. -Willmcw 07:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Something must be done about the demographics section. The information there is completely inaccurate as is revealed by acutal U.S. Census statistics. I tried to correct it, but my edits were reverted....Sicilianshotgun 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected the demographics section. I provided a link to the fact sheet just in case anyone wants to verify it Sicilianshotgun 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The source (Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights) definitely says: White 15,795 (55.2%) and Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 20,360 (71.2%). -- zzuuzz^(talk) 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. It waqs simple vandalism.[1] See also #Demographic Statistic Vandalism below. Unfortunately this guy is still at it.[2] -Will Beback · † · 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic Statistic Vandalism

The unregistered user (IP Address beginning 71.109) who keeps vandalizing the demographic statistics to reflect his/her racist bias towards white residents of Santa Paula will be reported and banned from editing if this continues. Dcmcgov 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Activity?

I'm wondering where the evidence for the informational gem under the "Gang Activity" header is coming from. Seems kind of dubious as Santa Paula and Gang Activity are not as synonymous as the entry would lead one to believe. Is the author of this section implying that Santa Paula's rival gangs are considerably worse in their behavior when compared with other more infamous Southern California gangs? Crips, Bloods, or even Colonia Chicques would seem to be more popularly infamous and even arguably more deadly. The total memberships of the Crimies, PartyBoyz, MOB, and BadBoyz combined would very likely not add up to half the membership roster of any Los Angeles County gang.

Is Santa Paula an unsafe and gang ridden community? Speaking from my personal experience the answer is no. Santa Paula is not any worse than Ventura, Oxnard, or even Fillmore (The three surrounding cities.) Perhaps Santa Paula has more gang related issues than Ojai or perhaps being a smaller community the per-capita statistics on gang activity appear to paint a bleaker image, but overall I think the Gang Activity entry paints a severely biased and un-warranted image of Santa Paula.

Looking at the FBI's Website (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_08.html) one finds that Santa Paula in 2004 had a Population of 29,212 and only 1 reported murder or non-negligent manslaughter charge. There were 7 rapes, 12 Robberies, and 41 Aggravated Assaults. These numbers don't seem to support the concept that Santa Paula's gangs are among the worst in Southern California.

Looking at Oxnard one finds a population of 182,959 and 18 reported murders or non-negligent manslaughter charges. There were 24 rapes, 370 robberies, and 360 aggravated assaults.

Doing the math Santa Paula should have a significantly higher proportion of violent crimes per capita in order to justify the statements about it's gangs being "worse" than others in Southern California. This is not the case supported by the available statistics.

Santa Paula has had far less than the 6.2 murders which it would need to equal the next nearest city assumed to have a "Gang Activity" issue. It has also significantly less than the 378 violent crimes reported it would need to meet the violent crimes per capita equivalent in Oxnard. Reported violent crimes in Santa Paula are also significantly less than the 254 per capita equivalent in Oxnard.

Rape appears to be the only statistic that seems to support Santa Paula as being a more violent place to live, as Santa Paula apparently has twice the per capita average when compared to Oxnard.

Being that Santa Paula offers less economic opportunity than most of the neighboring towns; and seems to exist as a less desirable bedroom community for most of the county; it's actually to it's credit that the over all crime statistics are as low as they are.

Thanks

I just wanted to thank whoever reverted my earlier edits. Everything I said was supported by US Census links that I provided. I wanted to edit this article because of the inaccuracies in the original statistics (91% Hispanic and 9% white [which includes Hispanics]??) not "racism". I also added a citation needed tag and an original research tag where needed. Just because I am unresgistered does not mean I am a vandal. 72.70.215.45 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Mike[reply]

No Filming

I just wanted to say that Georgia Rule is no longer being filmed here. It was during the summer when it was filmed. It's stopped a while ago. There are no more filmings that I am aware of.

Fair use rationale for Image:SantaPaulaSeal.jpg

Image:SantaPaulaSeal.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitized

Reading some of the other comments on the talk page, in addition to the unsubstantiated glowing claims about the character of the community, and the astonishing omission of the St. Francis Dam failure, lead me to believe that this page has become hopelessly sanitized. A major rewrite is needed. I may work on it, but perhaps someone else has an interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.175.188 (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Incident

I'm growing a bit concerned that the Mission Incident is being given too much weight. This may be a case of Wikipedia:Recentism. Trimming this material might result in a more balanced article, but I'd hate to lose any important facts or sources. It seems like there might be enough material for a separate article about the incident. Perhaps a split is in order.—Stepheng3 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it feels weird that there is much weight and nothing given to the other disasters. I will attempt an article for the incident. Moyir90 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have been thinking about this a long time. It can now be trimmed. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that, I'll work on condensing it. Moyir90 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Santa Paula, 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) 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]