Talk:Japantown, San Francisco
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Hi. Is it correct that 12,000 Japanese citizens live within the area? Where did such numbers come from? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 21:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- U.S. Census data shows 11,410 people of purely Japanese ancestry in the entire city. That does not include people of partial Japanese ancestry, and does not distinguish citizenship.  --ChrisRuvolo 21:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The 12,000 figure does seem a bit dubious for an area comprising about "six square city blocks". Also, no reliable source has been cited for this figure, therefore I am removing it from the article. Moksharamana 21:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen no chinese restraunts within what I see as j-town, e.g. bounded by Geary and Fillmore
Also - I propose removing, or at least recaptioning the photo from Geary, that is not really part of the commercial districts (one shop and some recieving doors) and the description of the pagoda as a border is misleading (the mall continues).
Japantown for sale
The National Archives site has a good collection of photos taken in Japantown during the 1942 forced evacuation. Someone with some free time could improve this article by selecting one and including it here.--Paul 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A map showing the approximate boundaries of Japantown and location on the SF penninsula would be useful here, if anyone has the means... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greensheep (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I wonder why user: Jun-Dai labeled the article under Recentism. The recent events of the neighborhood segment has been fine since August of 2006. Akit 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the "Recentism" charge and have removed the "recent history and controversy" section. The article is woefully lacking on the real history of this neighborhood and effort should be applied to beefing that up instead of a big bloated section about recent commercial considerations. Japantown is much more than a mall.--Paul 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
What I wonder is, wouldn't it be respectful to at least mention about the sale of the properties? It does not have to be a full-blown article. Would that then be considered "recentism?"
I agree, Japantown is much more than a mall, but after redevelopment, the malls and the hotels are now an important symbol to the community. When the sale of the properties did happen, it counted towards 3/4 of the entire neighborhood, doesn't that count as important history as well?
And no offense, being an involved community member within the San Francisco Japantown community, the sales and fight to preserve the property is important to not just me, but to the entire community at large. Akit 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the mention of the sales, but it really shouldn't be more than a small part of the history section, much less a whole section of its own representing more than half of the article. If there's any example of recentism, that was it. Should the controversy be considered significant enough, it should become an article of its own, not dominate the article on a topic that goes back over a hundred years. Jun-Dai 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The unsourced edit that introduced "Funayville" to the article was originally inserted by an anon edit in February of 2010 (see ). The only other edit made from that IP was clearly vandalism. So, since there seems to be no reliable source referring to "Funayville", I'll remove the references to it from the article. — Myasuda (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)