Talk:Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

As a native of the west side, I never thought of La Cienega as being where the west side ends. The 310 area code ends at La Cienega, however, the independent municipalities of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Culver City all include territory east of La Cienega (although only a small portion of Culver City is east of La Cienega), and the Fairfax District also straddles La Cienega. As Culver City's eastern border is at Fairfax, and Beverly Hills' eastern border is between La Cienega and Crescent Heights, I'd consider Fairfax to be the eastern border.

[edit] Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California (comment)

Dear American, and California sanctioned sayer of who's who and who do's and who don’t's. (If this sounds like a Dr. Suess quote please disregard the connection regarding the previous sentence) No Pun Intended... And so follows; Having family blood lines connecting myself directly to the culprit who in fact sanctioned this plot of land in the name of discovery and perseverance to the appropriate bodies of science and government, I cannot help but feel some what oppressed to the hand me down, generalization, and acceptance of what this "Property" might or may not mean to people. When I say people I am speaking directly to the property owners, their affiliates, National and local groups of historical preservation, and also the folks who are heading up the board for "this museum needs more donations and contributions to stay on its feet" committee. I realize the importance of property value. I have researched real estate tax. I clearly see how Hancock Park can be seen as some kind of "LA Utopia" where only the rich can afford to reside. I do not know the outcome of making Hancock Park a Historic Preservation, Overlay Zone APOZ from the city of Los Angeles. Although today all I can fight for here is as follows: the preservation of something that started out as field of discovery, truth, and unclaimed research to the past (to which I am certain experts would agree many finds lay unclaimed if it were not for building and housing developments of the past 100 years. Directly on top of, surfacing any other possible links of pre historic history in the surrounding areas) I guess that the local government does not put any importance in, or have any interest in a geographic site that contains evidence and artifacts to a species that was annihilated on this great planet we call Earth? Yeah sure the locations great, nice weather, and the soils perfect for cultivating oranges, homes for the wealthy who pride themselves on living in the "Miracle Mile District".It is a real shame that a piece of land could be valued so highly that history is swept under its carpet. I am not sure that taking an anthropocentric view on history will serve our species well, (as far as understanding goes in the long run) But increasing property taxes and overall value of such real estate is really an efficient way of making such importance of history less important to those who know no better? Good job greed, your serving your purpose well. And so I say, I am not attempting to change the direction of development or improvement in America today. But I do desire for others so see beyond (more appropriately) before a future development project. Someone should be asking what are we building on, what are we are building over? 209.193.67.225 08:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Leann Hancock

[edit] comments about names of ethnic groups

The section entitled "Today" contrasts seems to contrast "white" with four ethnic groups: << "white majority, but the area is home to a small number of wealthy blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Orthodox Jews " >>. In order to avoid implying that members of these ethnic groups are not "white", I would suggest to change the phrase where it says, "Hancock Park still has a white majority", to something more like "Hancock Park still has a WASP majority". in some way. Unless I hear some good reasons not to, I intend [/recommend] to make this change. Mike Schwartz 20:11-:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (markup added later -- 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Orthodox Jews, like their more secular, assimilated counterparts who typify Los Angeles' Jewish community, are considered "white" by the US government and the state of California.. Latinos can be of any race. Asians, African-Americans, immigrants of African heritage, and biracial people are not considered "white" by the US government and the state of California Hancock Park's WASP population is large by the standards of L.A., particularly inner-city L.A., but they are not the majority in the neighborhood. Being familiar with the area, I'd consider Jews (both Orthodox and non-Orthodox), WASPs, and Asians to be the largest groups. Hancock Park certainly is part of L.A.'s traditional "kosher belt" along with neighboring Fairfax and the independent city of West Hollywood. Death2Objectivism 06:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. I marked-up (revised) my comments [from 4 June 2007]. I certainly would not want to imply that there is a WASP majority in a certain place, it there is not. On the other hand, I still think that WASP may be a better term to use, (than "white"), to contrast with the four ethnic groups mentioned in the article: << "[...] wealthy blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Orthodox Jews" >>. Not being familiar with the area, I would not necessarily want to focus on WASPs, by saying that there are a lot of them in Hancock Park, (by the standards of L.A., or otherwise). But in my opinion, the statement that mentions "white majority" should be changed in some way. Should we still try to preserve some of the intent of the original author? I guess so. Presumably, the intent was to provide the reader some information of a certain kind. But the article should avoid implying that those ethnic groups mentioned, are not "white". In my opinion, implying that they are not "white" is not even very interesting - in addition to the whole question of whether it would be true or not. So, I am thinking of something like this statement:

"Hancock Park still has a lot of WASPs, but the area is home to [...]"

as a substitute for the statement currently in the article:

"Hancock Park still has a white majority, but the area is home to [...]"

(how does that sound?) Mike Schwartz 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that the largest group in Hancock Park would be Jewish whites, when one combines the more typical Los Angeles assimilated Jews with their Orthodox counterparts. Death2Objectivism 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Mike Schwartz back again, and it is "03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)" and no response yet, so I am going ahead with the edit to the article. I guess It can always be reverted if someone had something to say, and was in a coma or something. Also, you can still respond here on the talk page, (this section isn't being archived yet) (as far as I know); but meanwhile, I am changing the article to contrast WASPs with the 4 "other" ethnic groups listed, instead of contrasting 'white'. See the history (diff listing) of the main article for the exact [tiny] wording change. Mike Schwartz 03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)