Talk:Watts, Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / Los Angeles / Southern California (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Los Angeles task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Southern California task force.

[untitled section][edit]

The last sentence in this section makes no sense: "In July 2005, Watts returned to the news when a police SWAT team accidentally killed 18-month-old Suzy Peña who was held hostage by her father at a used-car lot in the area. Reaction in the community was divided between condemnation of Peña's father and calls for disciplinary action against the SWAT team, but surprisingly the division was not along racial lines: black and Latino activists could be found in both camps which in around 62% Hispanic, 32% African-American, 0.27% Asian, 8% White and 18% mixed races."

Can someone (preferrably the original poster) fix it to clarify what those statistics mean?

Hispanic people are white[edit]

I have been to Spain. The people there were white people. I believe that "Hispanics" are white people, too. Racial mumbo-jumbo permeates Wikipedia. GhostofSuperslum 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In some other articles, authors are careful to mention -- after the percentages by race -- who among those different races consider themselves "Hispanic." In other words, Hispanics can be white, black, Asian, or of any other race 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Which means hispanic is a cultural construct not a racial construct.

Also, there are towns in spain that are predomanitlly black, dating back from the hundreds of years when the moors of africa ruled spain or should i say 'andulasia', which was what spain was called during the moor rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

A Hispanic is mixed-race. Usually of European, African and Native American (of Mexico, Caribbean, and South America) It's kinda hard to categorize 'Hispanic' being there are so many different types. Azn Clayjar 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not all Hispanics are mixed race, although the vast majority are. Very few are fully "white" in either the genetic or ethnic sense. Even the original Spanish census of LA in the 1700's reflected this. In LA, since before it was even a part of the US, Mexicans have predominated, and most Mexicans are mixed or indigenous. Watts began as a majority Mexican settlement, has always had a large Mexican population,even as the black population increased for awhile, and today Mexicans/Mexican Americans are once again the majority. The earliest Mexican settlers were rail workers, the ones who built the Pacific Electric Railway, including the Watts Station which still exists.Tmangray (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Demographics and murder rate[edit]

How can an area with about 22 000 inhabitants have over 20 000 homicide in 15 years? How can there be anyone left? One of those 2 numbers has to be wrong Observer31 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First subway?[edit]

Um, no -- Watts was not the home of the first subway in the Americas; that would be Boston. I'm removing this statement until it can be sourced. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tyrese / 113th St[edit]

After much Googling, I was still unable to verify the fact that Tyrese was born on 113th Street in Watts. If there's a reliable source that says so, please add it back to the article with a citation. Thanks! Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate theater[edit]

Regarding this diff. Are you claiming this sentence refers to this: legitimate theater? That's about English law. What is an accredited performance in the United States? There are no accrediting agencies for performances. It really doesn't make sense, and if it's true, which I doubt, it needs a source. And even if it has a source it belongs in the body before it gets put in the lead. What's the accredited theater in Watts, specifically?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the legitimate theater article you mention regarding English law. It's a term used in the U.S. (which Watts is part of). You can read specifics about the term here and here. It has nothing to do with what you think it has to. I would agree that the theater should be referenced and I believe it is in this article. It clearly states that purpose is to bring legitimate theater to Watts. I've updated the article to include that reference. Dbroer (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. You mean that it's a term of art in the theater community to refer to live theater? If so, why not just say that? No one in the world is going to understand what that means otherwise.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm one person and the authors of countless articles that use that term certainly know it so I don't think it's fair to say that "no one in the world is going to understand" that term. Just because it's not a common term to you doesn't mean that it's not unknown to the rest of the world.
I say leave it in there. I'm not the original contributor but your reason for removing it was incorrect and I don't think it harms the article. The creator of the Watts Village Theater Company has stated in his own words that he was trying to bring legitimate theater to the community. That fact is confirmed by third party articles so why not leave it as a descriptor? Dbroer (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
But it's not in the dictionary as meaning that. It's a technical term to do with Actors' Guild contracts. In fact, the only use in the OED in reference to theatre contradicts your proposed meaning of it: the legitimate drama : the body of plays, Shakespearian or other, that have a recognized theatrical and literary merit; also ellipt. (Theatr. slang) the legitimate. Also in other collocations. So as n., an actor of legitimate drama. This means that if someone's confused by it, and believe me, people are likely to be, and they look it up in the dictionary, they'll find a meaning that's different from the one you're giving me and then they'll be really super confused. It's not at all clear from the context in the article you cite it to that the guy means what you say he means anyway. I think he means legitimate in the sense of Normal, regular; conformable to a recognized standard type, but out of context like it's in there now it's actually not comprehensible. I think you understood it wrong, to tell you the truth, if your reference is to that legal glossary. Finally, it doesn't even belong in the lead until there's some material about it in the body, which is a whole new problem.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not confused by what the original author meant and I provided examples of the usage that the original author used. I also provided some links showing the usage outside of the context of the English law that you brought up. Those links included articles in the New York Times as well as a legal context that the term might be used in the U.S. There are countless sources online which use the term in the context that the original author meant. FYI, it is in the dictionary, at least Merriam-Webster includes in its dictionary and that's the standard American-English source. I'm not trying to give you a different definition. If you recall, your original basis for removing it was because there wasn't anything such as illegitimate theater. I used the word accredited in my reason for undoing your revision but a more apt word would have been professional but people in the theater business know it as legitimate theater.
I agree with the assessment that perhaps it doesn't belong in the intro but I don't have a problem with it being there as well. It seems its been there for a long time without anyone else having a problem with it but I know that's not a basis for keeping it. Why not add it to the body as well? Dbroer (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. M-W convinces me. I have to remember to check there more often. Anyway, I didn't mean it doesn't belong in the lead because it's not important, I meant it doesn't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD, which says that the lead is meant to summarize important points of the body. Having legitimate theater in Watts would be an important enough point in the body to put in the lead if it were in the body. That's all I meant. Now I'm going to start saying "legitimate theater" around all the theater folk I know just to hassle them. Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)