Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 166: Line 166:
see bottom page last paragraph of this link: http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs0/668/overview.htm <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.194.217.33|77.194.217.33]] ([[User talk:77.194.217.33|talk]]) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
see bottom page last paragraph of this link: http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs0/668/overview.htm <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.194.217.33|77.194.217.33]] ([[User talk:77.194.217.33|talk]]) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Suggest to add a Population Estimate? ==
== Suggestion to add a Population Estimate? ==


Due to Los Angeles being a sanctuary city and having many international visitors and temporary residents, I feel that the “official population” doesn’t truly reflect the actual one. There is also a large segment of the population on work Visas and questionable immigration status in which they would not voluntarily opt to be counted in the census. These factors are significant and doesn’t seem to be reflected in the article
Due to Los Angeles being a sanctuary city and having many international visitors and temporary residents, I feel that the “official population” doesn’t truly reflect the actual one. There is also a large segment of the population on work Visas and questionable immigration status in which they would not voluntarily opt to be counted in the census. These factors are significant and doesn’t seem to be reflected in the article

Revision as of 19:33, 21 September 2011

Template:CurrentCityCOTM

Former good articleLos Angeles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
November 24, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Demonym: Angeleno?

I'm a native and I've always heard residents referred to as "Los Angelenos". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talkcontribs) 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What, seriously? I'm also a native (well, technically not quite, I suppose, but I've lived in L.A. for more than twenty years), and while I can't say for sure I've never heard residents referred to as "Los Angelenos", I can definitely say that "Angelenos" is by far the more common term. For what it's worth, Google backs that up; "Los Angelenos" gets 155,000 results, as opposed to over two million results for "Angelenos" (or slightly less than two million, if you exclude the hits that include "Los Angelenos"). Of course, what really matters is reliable sources, not Google hits or either of our personal experiences; I'm just saying that even your personal experience with hearing "Los Angelenos" doesn't seem to jibe with mine or with what's on the web. ----Smeazel (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard both, but mostly "Angelenos" without the Los. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native Californian, born in SoCal and lived in NorCal after college, and I've only heard Angelenos, not Los Angelenos. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Italy

The current dispute of Los Angeles having a Little Italy can easily be resolved with a source. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, 100%. I want the source in part, because I would like to go visit Little Italy in LA personally. I always do so when in San Francisco or San Diego. The problem is, I've just never heard of it. I know San Pedro used to be a "Little Italy" of sorts, and there were others. Unfortunately, we are talking about the past, and there is not current equivalent to North Beach in Los Angeles, or even the greater metropolitan area. The Scythian 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it used to exist. Similar to how San Diego used to have Chinatown but no longer does. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a "used to" thing. Take a look: here, here and here - only vestiges remain of what was never a giant community to begin with. Dohn joe (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know there were in the past several Little Italy's. A quick Google search brings up a number of historical articles on them[1]. For instance, where I live in Long Beach, there are several residual markets from the previously large and local Italian-American population, as well as Armenian, Greek and Assyrian. There is even a official "Greek-Latino" quarter in Los Angeles, near downtown, that represents the previous ethnic enclave, and the new ethnic groups that have move in. Just no Little Italy. As for San Diego, that was interesting. I never knew there was a Chinatown that came and went. Interesting. The Scythian 22:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Chinatown was where Horton Plaza and the Gaslamp Quarter are now. Evidently Little Italy does not exist in L.A.. all my sources point to historical articles, as you mentioned. 08OceanBeachS.D. 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely wish there was one. I would go check it out immediately. Unfortunately, I am now involved in a edit war over this, simply becuase the other editor has no wish in discussing it, or even commenting on this talk page. The Scythian 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
If the existence of Little Italy is disputed, it all depends on sources. This says "there is no publicly-identified "Little Italy" in Los Angeles" which is a pretty firm answer - so the article should not claim that there's a Little Italy, unless of course somebody finds a stronger source elsewhere which claims the opposite - it would have to be quite impressively sourced to outweigh http://www.italianlosangeles.org. bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)—bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there currently a Little Italy in Los Angeles? No (so Italian LA is correct). Did there used to be? Yes. It used to be that Lincoln Heights and the current Chinatown had large Italian populations. This was before Union Station was built on the site of old Chinatown. After Union Station was built, Little Italy became the current Chinatown. Relics of this are Nightengale Middle School (remember, the Italians claim her) in Lincoln Heights. Essentially piggybacking onto Dohn Joe. If there is no mention of Old Chinatown and Little Italy in the articles on Chinatown and Lincoln Heights, there ought to be Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Navyfighter04, 3 June 2011

the City of Alhambra had a large Italian American population back in the 70's and early 80's. Valley Boulevard had a large number of Italian American owned business. With the influx of Asians they moved south toward San Clemente. Anthony Venti became a prominent businessman in Alhambra and subsequently owned properties. He used to have a old barbershop on Valley boulevard called "Venti's". There was also old Garfono's pizza on valley boulevard west of the 710, near CSULA. It was an Italian owned restaurant until it was sold to the current Korean owner.

'Bisected'

Just wanted to point out that the sentence "It is the only major city in the United States bisected by a mountain range." is uncited, and arguably untrue (El Paso, for example, is more intensely bisected than LA). I can't edit, but someone who can should remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.180.92 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full name

I see that it is mentioned in the body and is actually a redirect but shouldn't "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula" be mentioned right after where the name is in the intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talkcontribs) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 91.7.194.34, 11 July 2011

Please add a link to its page for "Berlin, Germany" under "Sister cities". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Sister_cities ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin

91.7.194.34 (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:LAColiseumStatues.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LAColiseumStatues.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing zip code

San Pedro is part of L.A. and is district 15 on the Los Angeles city council. There are 15 districts. Our zip code is 90731, which is missing from the list of zip codes in the top right box of the Article.

It is interesting we are part of Los Angeles since we are 30 minutes south of downtown and other cities are in between, but the Harbor freeway connects us, and we give L.A. the tax revenue and other benefits of the harbor. We gave the city mayor Jim Hahn; and now his sister Janice Hahn (from San Pedro) represents us in Congress, after representing district 15 on the city council, FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zip code 90710 is also missing and I am rather sure that Harbor City is part of Los Angeles and not a separate city as the name would imply. Check out also, Wilmington. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles by looking at the funded libraries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Public_Library The zip codes for Wilmington are 90744, and 90748, also not on the list, FYI, needing to be added. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 66.74.41.231, 30 July 2011

Hello, The Los Angeles article seems very thorough, and under "religion" seemed thorough also ( even to Zoroastrianism or Sikhism ).

I think it is true and important to also include the 100 of 1000's that are not noted at all, those who are Protestants. (Presbyterian [attended by Ronald Reagan], Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, with a host of others who are Protestants in Los Angeles)

It struck me as very strange that the article, as sincerely best I could read it, leaves the impression there is not one protestant in the city.

thank you very much for all your efforts!, sincerely, K D Rohrig


66.74.41.231 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)K D Rohrig[reply]

 Not done: Please write the exact text you'd like to see inserted, including reliable sources. You can then reactivate this edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhs

Where do most of the sikhism live in the LA area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics: Population

--98.210.96.51 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)8/25/2011 "The racial makeup of Los Angeles was 1,888,158 (49.8%) White, 365,118 (9.6%) African American, 28,215 (0.7%) Native American, 426,959 (11.3%) Asian, 5,577 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 902,959 (23.8%) from other races, and 175,635 (4.6%) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 1,838,822 persons (48.5%)."[reply]

Percentage total = 148.4% Percentage total without Hispanics and Latinos of any race = 99.9%

Presentation of population information very unclear.

  • how is this unclear? hispanic/latino is a separate category from race, so you add up all the people from each race, you get 100% with rounding error, and some of the people of some of the races are, besides being of that race, are also hispanic/latino. if you understand it but think it's not well expressed, why not fix it? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Dr photon, 30 August 2011

Please change the city population density to one calculated using the land area of the city only (excluding water). That is the standard density metric used for all city web-pages on Wikipedia. So "7544.6/sq mi (2,913/km2)" should be "8092.3/sq mi (3,161/km2)"


Gangs

The LAPD source states 250 gangs but the California Central Disctrict Drug Threat Assessment talks about at least 1350. Which one is right ? see bottom page last paragraph of this link: http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs0/668/overview.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.217.33 (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add a Population Estimate?

Due to Los Angeles being a sanctuary city and having many international visitors and temporary residents, I feel that the “official population” doesn’t truly reflect the actual one. There is also a large segment of the population on work Visas and questionable immigration status in which they would not voluntarily opt to be counted in the census. These factors are significant and doesn’t seem to be reflected in the article

College Watch (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]