Talk:Los Angeles, California/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Airports 2 Climate 3 Area 4 Requested move #4 4.1 Survey 4.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 4.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 4.2 Discussion 4.2.1 Why the article for the city of Los Angeles should not be at Los Angeles 5 Demographics 6 City Name Translation 7 Doomed? 8 Public Transit 9 Embarassing Article 10 Los Angeles Neighborhood Map 10.1 Update 11 LA Picture request 12 Party Label 13 5 Counties, not Cities 14 Dubious: Oldest synagogue in Los Angeles 15 Districts and neighborhoods in navigation box 16 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Anaheim Ducks 17 Angels and Ducks 18 Proposal to remove content from article 18.1 Survey 18.1.1 Survey - in support of removing mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks content from this article. 18.1.2 Survey - in opposition of removing mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks content from this article 18.2 Discussion 19 2000 census 20 L.A. County Maps 21 College and university gallery 22 Population estimates 23 questionable facts 24 I Like the Revised Article 25 Seperate Pages for Crime and Environmental Issues 26 Attractions article 27 should all LA teams be mention in the Anaheim article. 28 Caltech? 29 Proposal to post only official U.S. Census Bureau population data not "estimates" 30 Featured article 30.1 Los Angeles 31 Recording 32 Citations 33 Coding into HTML is censorship really 34 Notable People 35 Hispanic majority? 36 Proposal to move disambiguation page 36.1 Support 36.2 Oppose 36.3 Comments 37 Annexations.

Airports

I think the article should read 'near-by airports' or the airports outside city limits should be removed, beacuse this article gives the false impression that airports like Ontario are inside city limts, when it is way outside city limits. While the article states "The Los Angeles metropolitan area", it does not adequatly differencitate between the airports inside and outside city limits, it just states that LAX is main airport. Also, the sentance "The Los Angeles metropolitan area is served by more airports than any major city in the world" is misleading, beacuse the LA metropolitan area is not a city, it is a metropolitian area. The metropolitan area also includes, if I remember correctly, Orange county, so should Orange County airports be included also?. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "nearby" to this section. Ontario airport, while outside the city limits, is actually owned by the city of Los Angeles. Maybe someone can add this information. (I'm too tired to figure out how to word it nicely right now). --Oakshade 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate

Is there no climate or geography section? -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Area

The 2000 Census states 469 sq mi What is the 498 sq mi based off? It might be overcounting some land. here's the link http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

The other 29.2 sq mi are supposedly water. Unfortunately, the current page incorrectly states 465.0 sq mi and then shows it made up of 469.1 square miles of land and 29.2 square miles (75.7 km²) of it is water, which obviously don't add up right (however the sq kms listed do add up right). I'll change it to 498.3 sq mi, just to make the number add up right, and then it can be decided if the water area is accurate and even if it should still be counted.

"465.0 square miles (1,290.6 km²)—469.1 square miles (1,214.9 km²) of it is land and 29.2 square miles (75.7 km²) of it is water." Jerri Kohl 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also changed the area stated in the initial section (which stated 465 sq mi). I set it to the land area. Again, those with more domain expertise can decide whether that figure should include the water area. I'll note that the sidebar areas are in line with that stated in the actual article now. Jerri Kohl

Requested move #4

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. In fact, there is no consensus about which guidelines apply, and those guidelines are themselves subject to ongoing discussion. --Stemonitis 13:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Demographics section is in need of a good strong review. We are led to believe that the city, with 3.7 million people, has 2.7 m households. This is just plain wrong. Average household size in the LA area is more than 3 and nowhere in the nation does it drop to the under 1.5 that this would require. Dont have time now to fix it. Cannot tell if the remaining demographics are correct. Suspect that the editor got the city mixed up with something else, though 2.7 million households is too small for the county, the urban area and the metropolitan area.... Demographia 00:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC]

Largest Israeli population outside Israel?

The wikipedia page on Jewish Americans states that New York City has the largest Israeli population in the U.S. and LA has the second largest. There is also a reference on that page.

City Name Translation

i'm surprised no hispanic or spanish-speaker has changed the translation of the city's spanish name into english. the translation is correct until it translates 'los angeles' as 'los angeles.' this means 'the angels' in spanish, and thats wut it should read. also, i've seen versions of the city's name as 'el pueblo de nuestra señora la reina del rio porciúncula (the town of our lady the queen of the angels of the porciúncula river)'. 4.230.162.172 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

in theory, no, because in the whole world L.A. is know as Los Angeles, not The Angels. The translation of the "real name" (at least the name given by Spanish people) is accurate. Now that we are talking about it, a little of trivia that I think should be included in the article (like a "Los Angeles in Popular culture" section) but I dont know where to put it. L.A. is in the spanish Guiness Records as the shortest abbreviation in spanish language: the full name in reduced in 96.37% from El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora bla bla bla to just L.A. --ometzit<col> 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That Guiness fact is in the article - its now a ref point (see ref #1). It had been added into the main text and deleted a couple of times by people thinking it was and wasn't important so I moved it to a footnote after te first mention of LA being an abbreviation. Mfield 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So what about that "Los Angeles in Popular culture" section? (Could also include GTA:SA. ;-)) -- Jokes Free4Me 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Doomed?

Is the city doomed to going the way of Atlantis due to climate change? MHarrington 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know much about Atlantis it's hard to say. But the average elevation of Los Angeles is considerably higher than many large coastal U.S. cities, if that's what you're thinking of. (I guess the fear of the area splitting off or sinking into the sea due to earthquake is secondary now.) The whole state of Florida will be under water long before the Pacific Ocean laps at the steps of L.A. City Hall, which is at approximately 300 ft (90 meters). But the lowlying areas around Venice/Marina del Rey and down to Long Beach/Santa Ana will depend on dykes if sea levels rise. I suppose civic goverments are beginning to ponder this situation. The simultaneous loss of LAX, Hyperion, the oil infrastructure, and the port facilities could be a formidable challenge for Los Angeles. (But it sure beats Miami's potential problems, or even New York's.) As sources develop we may want to add a section on the city's disaster planning. -Will Beback · † · 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (LAX is at 126 feet, so it should be safe for a while.)

You mentioned Venice/Marina del Rey and Long Beach/Santa Ana, but what about Anaheim? MHarrington 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Anaheim is at about 47 meters, so its fairly safe too. The coastal areas of Orange County may have some trouble though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Public Transit

Good article, one suggestion. I moved to Los Angeles in early 2000 when the trains were just being developed. I remember when the Red Line finally reached the Valley (North Hollywood, where I was living). Coming from Boston, a city with one of the most frequently utilized train systems in the States, it was surprising for me as a non-driver to land into such a car-driven culture. But over the 6 years that I lived in Los Angeles, I have to commend the City for really putting forth a good effort to improve the train system. They have launched several new lines, kept prices low, improved the ticketing system, and created some really beautiful, unique train stations on the Red Line. I think this article should at least mention that the City has been improving the train system continually in the past few years.

Cheers, SlapAyoda 23:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow Bostonian. The transportation section of the article makes copious notes of the proposed and current expansions to the system. To say anything more (e.g. "Los Angeles has put in good efforts lately to improve public transit.") would be opinion or original research. Give it a few years, and the numbers will make this statement. In a city where 10.5% of commuters (see page 12) take public transit, there's certainly room to grow.--Loodog 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Embarassing Article

As an Angeleno, my jaw drop as to how awful this article has become. How come the French and German wrote a far better article on this? So good in fact that their respective independently-written L.A. entry both received the highest wikipedia accolade of gold stars. What's shocking is that they both know it's so bad, that not one passage is translated from the English version. The layout and content of those articles were professionally presented whereas here, a bunch of amateur aerial photos hobnob with stubby stilted paragraphs. "Unbalanced" is the key problem with this entry. The Culture section for example, has nothing on the performing arts but chockfull of random crap on the "sports" sections. The "media" gets a stub, yes, a fucking stub. Its freeways are legendary, but there's no discussion of it. It gets shortshrifted because of a handful of mass transit hobbyhorses. Updates to this article are rarely ever substantial--oftentimes the updates are to add the name of whatever ethnic group to the "National Origins" section. Disgusting.

Thanks for your criticism. I'll go look at those articles and see what we can learn from them. To address a few of your points: The culture section grew so large we moved most of it to another article: Arts and culture of Los Angeles. Likewise the material on freeways, which is at Transportation of Los Angeles. And ditto for Media in Los Angeles. Perhaps we should duplicate the material more so that this article is more comprehensive on its own. Maybe the "see main article" notices aren't prominent enough. I don't think the "national origins" section is too long. L.A. is a principal point of entry of new immigrants to the U.S., so its population has notably diverse origins. The main thing this article needs to get a gold star are more sources. In my opinion, this article is well-sourced, but I wouldn't want to drastically cut uncited material just to make it look more highly sourced. Some rebalancing and tightening are probably necessary. We have different articles for the "Los Angeles Area" and the country but non-city material still gets added here. -Will Beback · † · 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How can this article be listed as good baffles me. Sentences like "The metropolitan area contains the headquarters of even more companies, many of whom wish to escape the city's high taxes" go without any references. The sections are chaotic and randomly large and so on.--Svetovid 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Neighborhood Map

I created an SVG version of this map but when I upload it it does not look right and has big black spots on it. I used inkscape and would like some help if anyone is intersted. Jorobeq 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't use that map. It's not yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infernalfox (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I should be able to since i just traced the borders of the places Image:Los Angeles Neighborhoods and Names.svg Jorobeq 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just created this map that illustrates the borders of LA and the borders of its constituent neighborhoods.

Jorobeq 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Any improvements, etc?? Jorobeq 05:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These maps are very well-made, and I commend Jorobeq for his hard work. However, since the boundaries are based on the LA Almanac's work, I think the maps' copyright status is in question. Though I know the maps are not a direct uploaded copy of the LA Almanac map (at http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm), they would likely count as a "derivative work" under copyright law. That's probably what Infernalfox meant in his comment above. The neighborhood definitions are the LA Almanac's own proprietary work, and are not official in any sense. However, I'm not going to tag the images as unfree until there's further discussion on the subject, though if others feel such action is appropriate they can feel free. (N.B.: I'm working on a series of maps to use in articles about LA neighborhoods, which use a red dot to show the neighborhood's location and do not use boundaries. There are links to prototype versions of them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California.) szyslak 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur that (1) the work is an un-free derivative work and (2) the neighborhood boundaries given by L.A. Almanac are arbitrary and do not reflect any official definition. --Coolcaesar 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have listed these images at WP:PUI because I dispute their copyright status and consider them unfree derivative works. You may leave comments at their entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#June 11. szyslak 06:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. Jorobeq 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LA Picture request

I would like shots of the fronts of University High School (Los Angeles, California) and Palisades Charter High School in order to post on Wikipedia articles.

To get an idea of what I want, see: Image:HoustonLamarHighSchool.JPG

WhisperToMe 04:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

you should post these requests to Wikipedia:Requested_pictures as well. Mfield 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Party Label

Since the mayoral election in LA is nonpartisan, is it really needed to put the (D) after Villaraigosa's name? Jorobeq 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be there. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

5 Counties, not Cities

The Greater Los Angeles Area encompasses a much larger area, consisting of 5 cities and an estimated 18 million people.

Surely this should read "5 counties," not "5 cities."

LA County alone contains 80+ cities with a total population of around 10 million.

The other counties in the region are Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.

Jbunniii 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the source means 5 principal cities... if anyone actually included a source.--Loodog 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious: Oldest synagogue in Los Angeles

The article claims that the Breed Street Shul is the oldest synagogue in Los Angeles. According to my research, it was built in 1915. Wilshire Boulevard Temple (predates it by many decades, I believe) see these sites for how I base my conclusions [1] and [2]. That having been said, it is difficult to come up with a definitive "oldest synagogue in Los Angeles" because some may debate the criteria, whether the building has been refurbished, rebuilt, moved, etc... But I am pretty sure that the Breed Street Shul is not the oldest in LA. --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Districts and neighborhoods in navigation box

We need to do something about the gigantic "districts and neighborhoods" section of the navigation box for LA-related articles. See the discussion at Template talk:Los Angeles#Districts and Neighborhoods section. szyslak 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Anaheim Ducks

Should we mention the 2002 World Series victory for the Anaheim Angels or the 2007 Stanley Cup victory for the Anaheim Ducks in this article? These teams aren't in Los Angeles. Somebody used the example of how the New York Giants serve the New York market although they play in New Jersey.

Somebody else used the example of the Texas Rangers. If they did win the World Series, he said that they should be mentioned in the Dallas article. First of all, they play in Arlington, Texas, not Dallas, Texas. Second, they haven't won the World Series.

In conclusion, I simply don't think they should be mentioned in this article as they don't serve the Los Angeles market. They serve both the Anaheim market and the Orange County market, but not the Los Angeles market. Everybody else's thoughts? --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Media markets, or DMAs, are defined by the FCC and the Nielsen Media Research Group. All of Orange County is part of the Los Angeles market, which extends up the coast to Ventura and inland to Victorville. Also see this map and List of television stations in North America by media market. The upshot is, there is no "Anaheim" or "Orange County" market. Major sports leagues go by media markets to determine what areas they serve, where games are broadcast on television and blacked out, etc. Orange County is in the Los Angeles market, just as East Rutherford, New Jersey (home of the Giants) is in the New York market, and Arlington, TX is part of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. Thus, a discussion of "L.A. sports" doesn't stop at the Los Angeles city limits. The Ducks and Angels can serve L.A. without being physically located in L.A. (though in the "L.A. area"). szyslak 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But also, the Anaheim Angels play in Anaheim and have their rival, the Dodgers, in Los Angeles. Additionally, the Anaheim Ducks' rivals, the Kings, play in Los Angeles. For the Rangers scenario, no team plays in Dallas. And, look at Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The template at the bottom says which teams are in or around Los Angeles. Inland Empire cities like Rancho Cucamonga, Lancaster, San Bernardino, etc. If Lancaster, who for the record is the minor league affiliate of the Boston Red Sox, won the minor league championship, would you put in Los Angeles' article a mention of them winning that championship?

And do you have proof from a secondary source that the Angels and Ducks are considered to be in the Los Angeles media market? If you have proof, then I'll back off. Please show me proof. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Angels are referred to as a Los Angeles-market team on Baseball Almanac, MLB's official site, and elsewhere. Remember, "L.A. media market" and "city of L.A." are two different things. For marketing and media purposes, they serve the L.A. market. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is. Yes, there are more Angels fans in Orange County than in the city of L.A. There are more New York Mets fans in Queens and Long Island than in Manhattan, where most root for the Yankees. Does that mean the Mets "don't serve" Manhattan? We could squabble endlessly over where most of the fans are, etc. But the fact remains: the Ducks and Angels serve Los Angeles, whether Orange County likes it or not. It works the other way, too: The Dodgers and Kings serve Orange County. szyslak 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And by looking at that map, it looks like Anaheim/Orange County is in a separate media market comparing to the map from Image:Tvmarkets.gif. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which map are you looking at? szyslak 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm comparing Image:Tvmarkets.gif to Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png; in the Anaheim map, you see that Orange County is the second-southern most, the dark-brownish shade near San Diego County at the bottom. On Image:Tvmarkets.gif, that is colored blue. The Los Angeles County media market on that same map is shaded pink-ish. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png has nothing to do with media markets. The Anaheim city boundaries are colored red. There's a map like that for every incorporated city in Orange County, along with L.A. County. In Image:Tvmarkets.gif, the "dark brown shade" you refer to is not Orange County. It's the Palm Springs market, 149th among DMA markets, which is shown in more detail here. The L.A. market, number 2, is shown in similar detail here. szyslak 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I agree I read the map wrong. I apologize for that. However, as I said below, the article is "Los Angeles, California," not "Los Angeles media market's sports teams." The article should be about Los Angeles itself, not about any event that occurs outside Los Angeles, despite media markets. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Palm Springs is the elongated county. According to Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png, the entirety of Orange County, including Anaheim, is the county directly to the west of Palm Springs. According to Image:Tvmarkets.gif, that section is blue. According to that same map, the Los Angeles area is pink. This means that they are different media markets because of the different color. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Palm Springs is not a county, but a city that's within Riverside County, the "elongated" county you're referring to. Palm Springs is actually located very far to the east much closer to the Arizona border than it is to Los Angeles. The city of Riverside (the county seat or Riverside county) and many other Inland Empire cities are part of the Los Angeles media market. --Oakshade 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright...

No, Palm Springs is within Riverside County, the elongated county. According to Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png, the entirety of Orange County, including Anaheim, is the county directly to the west of Palm Springs. According to Image:Tvmarkets.gif, that section is blue. According to that same map, the Los Angeles area is pink. This means that they are different media markets because of the different color.

According to the map I was directed to, Riverside County is the huge, blue TV market. Los Angeles is still the pinkish section, and Anaheim/Orange County is located within Palm Springs' media market. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003, according to that map, Image:Tvmarkets.gif, both Los Angeles and Orange Counties are in blue and the "pinkish" counties are in fact Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. --Oakshade 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some pointers on reading the Tvmarkets.gif map:

• There is no "Palm Springs County" in California. If there were, you'd think there'd be an article called Palm Springs County, California. (responding to a point that wasn't corrected before the edit conflict)
• The Palm Springs media market, in dark reddish brown, covers only a small portion of Riverside County. The rest, including the city of Riverside, is in the blue-tinted L.A. market.
• The pink area you refer to is the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-San Luis Obispo market, #122 at List of television stations in North America by media market and mapped in detail here.
• If it's light blue on Tvmarkets, it's in the L.A. market. Orange County is light blue. Therefore, Orange County is in the L.A. market.
• Take a look at List of television stations in North America by media market. Do you see an "Orange County" market? No? Then there isn't one.

szyslak 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, yeah, I believed LA was more west. I was wrong, and now, I do believe that they are different TV markets.

However, still, if a team at the northern-most portion of that TV market wins some sort of championship, would it be in the Los Angeles article? Because the World Series and Stanley Cup were won by teams in Anaheim who played in Anaheim and were not known as Los Angeles, it shouldn't be included within the Los Angeles article.

Media markets aside, why should they be mentioned in the article? --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We've already established that I was wrong about the maps and color shading. However, media markets don't determine whether Anaheim should be included in Los Angeles.

They may be in the same media market. But Anaheim is Anaheim and Los Angels is Los Angeles. They're two different cities. The championships were won by two Anaheim teams and should only mentioned in Anaheim's article. The teams weren't associated with Los Angeles by the team nor the league nor the city of Los Angeles. --Ksy92003 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you were repeately using that media market map as "proof" that these teams shouldn't belong in the Los Angeles article, but now that you've seen the map proves the opposite of your point now you're choosing to ignore it? Ahh, okay. --Oakshade 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to accuse me of something? I was trying to use the maps as proof because that's what was given to me by the other user. Originally, my standpoint was that they shouldn't be included because of the different cities and all that. But the other user gave me those maps. I was trying to use those maps to prove him wrong, not to prove myself correct.

I said they shouldn't be in the article last night, long before I was given the map. Don't accuse me of changing my point of view. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But those maps proved the editor correct and you were wrong; Los Angeles and Orange County are the same media market which you attempted to dispute. As you used those maps as "evidence" of your case and have subsequently been shown the maps prove the opposite, you have now changed your argument to media markets and those maps as being irrelevant. It's becoming impossible to know what your arguments to delete Los Angeles Angels and Anaheim Ducks content from this article are since you're changing those arguements when "evidence" begins proving you incorrect. --Oakshade 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion isn't any different. I was trying to use that as evidence because the other user directed me to those maps. I was simply wrong in reading the map, but that doesn't change the fact that I think that they shouldn't be mentioned. If you're in court and are suing somebody, if the defendant gives you information and asks you to try to use that information to prove their case, if the plaintiff can't, does that mean the court case is over? No, the plaintiff would use other information to prove the defendant guilty. If the plaintiff can't prove the defendant guilty with one piece of information, they can have backup information. If one way doesn't work, they can have another way. They can have as much evidence as they want to try to prove the defendant guilty.

In court, there are several ways to prove somebody did something. There's DNA testing, fingerprint analysis, security video tapes, eye-witness, etc. The same thing can be applied to this conflict. Also, in science. When scientists are trying to prove something, if they can prove it any way possible, no matter how many previous attempts they've had, if they can prove something to be true at least once, then it's true. The same thing can be applied to this conflict. Just because I can't prove something one way doesn't mean I can't prove it at all.

If somebody gives you something to work with, and you try to use that but misinterpret it, you can still plead your case with other evidence. I wasn't planning on using that map as my evidence until I was directed to it by the other user. I was wrong, but that didn't change my opinion. It was the same before he showed me the map.

Anyway, here's my point about the conflict. Irregardless of "media markets," I still believe that Anaheim teams shouldn't be mentioned in Los Angeles' article. If the Dodgers or Kings won titles in baseball or hockey, would they be mentioned in Anaheim, California because they're in the same media market? Would they be mentioned in Palm Springs, California or Riverside, California because they're in the same media market I hope you actually answer this question, Oakshade. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they would. (In case you're wondering, The Press Enterprise is based in Riverside). --Oakshade 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the Orange County Register also has a section devoted to the Dodgers. --Oakshade 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that the OC Register has a section dedicated to the Dodgers. The LA Times has a section for the Angels, as well. I am well aware of that.

Another reason why the media markets shouldn't determine if we talk about them here or not is because this is not media. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper nor tv/radio news program. It's our job to contain only encyclopedic information, not media information. Media markets shouldn't determine what is included in each article. For example, if, as you say, something that happens in Palm Springs or Riverside should be mentioned in Los Angeles, California, and if (using the example that created the controversy in the first place) the Angels won the World Series, they would be (in your opinion) mentioned in Los Angeles, California because they're in the same media market. Well then, would we mentioned the Angels winning the World Series in the articles for all cities within that market, like:

1. Long Beach
2. Cerritos
3. Torrance
4. Palm Springs
5. Riverside
6. Orange
7. Los Alamitos

et cetera. If you use the media markets to say that Anaheim winning grants it mention in Los Angeles' article, then you'd have to include it in the articles of all cities within that media market. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've completely contradicted yourself by claiming that "media markets don't matter" (see here where you claim they do), it's becoming impossible to know what your arguement is now. On a side note, the content of the Angels and Ducks have been consistantly in this article since June of 2002. That might be a record for any WP content and you're the only person deleting it without any consenus. --Oakshade 05:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, don't forget that we have a special article, Greater Los Angeles, just to handle these regional issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and I was going to propose this idea before Will Beback mentioned it. In fact, I'll go ahead and move the disputed portion of the "Sports" section (the part that begins with "There were several years that made Los Angeles area sports dominate") to the article Greater Los Angeles Area. The coverage of professional sports in that article is merely a list of teams. That should solve the problem unless anyone's willing to argue Orange County isn't part of Greater Los Angeles. szyslak 05:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to dissagree. There's only one user disputing this. And keep in mind the content has been in this article since June of 2002. Removing it is completely at odds with WP:CONSENSUS policy. --Oakshade 05:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved it in accordance with WP:BOLD. Remember that this is a move of content, not a removal. It's still around, just in another article. Also, nothing in WP:CON says you have to seek approval from other editors before making a change. szyslak 06:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I only said they mattered because when we first began this argument, Szyslak gave me thap map and kinda forced me to try to use that map to give my argument. According to WP:CON:

“

Consensus can change. Each consensus can be a new starting point. You or someone else can make a new edit to start the process over, as often as necessary.

”

This is consistent with what I said earlier about changing my support for my opinion. All that has been done is that I've been proven that Anaheim and Los Angeles are in the same media markets. But nobody has yet to prove that being in the same media market allows this information to be put into other articles.

But you have to believe me on this; the main reason why I disputed this was because Los Angeles and Anaheim are different cities. If we're trying to have a 100% accurate encyclopedia, it seems unprofessional to discuss something occurring in Anaheim within the content of other events occurring in Los Angeles. The first thing I said when I originally removed that content was, "Anaheim is Anaheim. Los Angeles is Los Angeles." Media markets don't matter; which other articles (besides Los Angeles and Anaheim) actually do mention all these championships by the Angels, Ducks, Sparks, Galaxy, and Lakers?

Long Beach only talks about events in Long Beach. Orange doesn't have a sport section Palm Springs only talks about events in Palm Springs. Riverside doesn't have a sports section. San Bernardino only talks about events in San Bernardino. Torrance doesn't have a sports section

Anaheim, California doesn't mention Los Angeles' sports teams anywhere in the article. It doesn't even talk about the Angels' 2002 World Series or the Ducks' 2007 Stanley Cup.

So what if it's been in the article for 5 years? Are you saying that I can't make an edit to a section because it's been around for 5 years? Something being around for 5 years doesn't mean anything.

“

That might be a record for any WP content and you're the only person deleting it without any consenus.

”

I don't need to seek a consensus to make an edit (see WP:BOLD and WP:CON). If it turns out in the end that I'm the only one who agrees with an edit that I made, that doesn't make me wrong for making that edit, as I was just being bold.

“

I have to dissagree. There's only one user disputing this. And keep in mind the content has been in this article since June of 2002.

”

You get all on my case because I removed content that has been around for 5 years. That doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't matter if it's been on for 5 years or 5 minutes. So don't get all mad at me for nothing, Oakshade. I was being bold and I could do what I did. Greater Los Angeles Area is a better place for that information, anyway. So please, don't get mad at me for no reason. And when you say "There's only one user disputing this," on the contrary, Oakshade...

There's only one user who supports that information being mentioned in the article: you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, only on this current dispute another editor dissagreed with you. If there were other users who agreed to your point of view, in 5 years WP:CONSENSUS would've changed. But anyway, you're using your first arguement that because those teams are based in Anaheim, they shouldn't be mentioned in an article about Los Angeles. Well, we dissagree. And you dissagreed. Quote from you:

"Again, both the Giants and Jets play in New Jersey but they are the New York Giants and New York Jets. The location in the team's name defines which media market they are a part of. The New York Islanders play in Uniondale, but are a part of the New York media market because of the "New York" in their name. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in St. Petersburg, but are a part of the Tampa Bay media market because of the "Tampa Bay" in their name. Teams' media markets are generally defined by the location in their name.--Ksy92003 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We agree with that statement wholeheartedly. --Oakshade 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, that was after I was given the map, which meant I was trying to use that map as evidence. And the only other user involved in this conflict at all was Szyslak and he/she concurred.

No matter how many times I tell you, my original argument was that Anaheim is Anaheim and Los Angeles is Los Angeles. When will you get that through your thick skull? When I first removed it, it was because Anaheim and Los Angeles are two different cities. What happens in Anaheim shouldn't be mentioned in Los Angeles' article. Just get that through your thick skull that that was my main argument before Szyslak brought up the media markets stuff.

Anyway, it's already been moved to a better article so stop arguing with me. It's not gonna help at all. Stop trying to twist my arguments around; I don't appreciate that. Doing that is not a good way of getting your point across. It's not good to accuse other people of changing their opinions because they've been proven wrong. I haven't done that; my opinion is the same as it was Sunday evening: the mentioning of the Angels and Ducks, who play in Anaheim, shouldn't be mentioned in Los Angeles, California's article.

This discussion is over. The information has been moved to a better article and removed from this article. This discussion, therefore, is over now. --Ksy92003 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Angels and Ducks content is still in this article as it should be. Besides being in technically different cities, you've offerred no reasons as to why WP:CONSENSUS should be changed and the content should be removed. Your "they're in different cities" argument doesn't hold water (this argument is besides "they're in different media markets" which you completely flip-flopped on when you were shown they're in the same media market). The Angels and Ducks play in the same metropolitan area as Los Angeles and they have a large fan base in that city, not to mention being in the same media market which even you argued mattered. As you stated yourself, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in and are based in St. Petersburg, but there is no case to delete the Devil Rays content from the Tampa article. --Oakshade 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

God, I don't know how many times I've got to tell you this. Okay, Oakshade. I'm going to say something to you now. Read it, eat it, sleep it...

MY ARGUMENT ISN'T ABOUT THE MEDIA MARKETS!!!

And there isn't any consensus. It's one vs. one, which doesn't give consensus. The other major problem is that it's the Anaheim Angels and Anaheim Ducks. Most teams don't play in the city that's in their name, but all teams that have a location in their team name different from the city that they play in play in a lesser-known city. This is aside from the media markets, but Tampa Bay is in their name. Los Angeles wasn't in the Angels or Ducks name, making them different.

It doesn't matter anyway. This argument began before I knew about the Greater Los Angeles Area article. Had I known about that anyway, I would've suggested it to be moved there, anyway. That's a better article because Anaheim is in that area, but they aren't in Los Angeles. Anaheim is its own separate city; additionally, it isn't a lesser-known city.

Just please stop this. There is no consensus either way, as its 1 vs 1. Please, this conversation is over. --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to try to erase our memories and claim you weren't argueing that being in the same media market mattered, go ahead, but your flip-flopping record shows otherwise. And it's not one vs. one. If something has sat undisputed for five years and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of editors read it and choose never to remove the content, that's a very long standing del facto consensus with only one user (you) coming along and deleting it. Besides, just because a team plays in Anaheim doesn't mean it doesn't serve all surrounding areas. These teams serve the city of Los Angeles population just as they serve Riverside or Long Beach. This is why The Los Angeles Times and The Los Angeles Daily News (a Woodland Hills based newspaper no less) devote extensive coverage to the Angels and Ducks, arguably equal to the coverage they give to the Dodgers and Kings. --Oakshade 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't say that just because something has been around for over 5 years that there's a consensus amongst everybody... You can't say that you have a consensus just based on something not being changed for a long time. You can't prove that at all.

You can argue this as long as you want. But I am not going to reply back. This argument, for real, is over. The information's already been moved. Despite all your accusation towards me, I still got what I wanted. All that I wanted was that to be removed from this article. It has, and now I have no reason to have any sort of discussion now.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by Ksy92003 (talk • contribs).

The content about the Angels and Ducks you tried to remove is still in the article. If there's an edit war, it's best to put to a vote which I think will go by quickly. --Oakshade 21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Angels and Ducks

A dispute has been brewing over whether this article should mention the championships won by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks. Let's discuss it here on the talk page instead of reverting over and over. I guess one question is, how do we define an "L.A." team? I say it's any team that serves the Los Angeles media market, not just teams that play within the city limits of Los Angeles. For decades, the Los Angeles Lakers played in Inglewood. Does that mean they weren't a "real" L.A. team at the time? And does a team absolutely have to have "L.A." in its name to be an L.A. team? szyslak 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment is above. The main purpose is that the Angels and Ducks aren't in the Los Angeles media market. They're in the Anaheim and Orange County media markets. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another main point is that when the Angels won their championship, they were still known as the Anaheim Angels; they didn't change their name until two years later, in 2004. If they are considered a part of the Los Angeles market, which I don't think they do, but if, then it would only be after they changed their name. That was after they won the 2002 World Series. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They're "part of the Los Angeles market" by virtue of being located in the market. By the way, the featured article New York City mentions the "New Jersey" Giants and Jets. I guess if it really bothers you, you can write a letter to Nielsen Media and ask for a change in its practices. szyslak 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, both the Giants and Jets play in New Jersey but they are the New York Giants and New York Jets. The location in the team's name defines which media market they are a part of. The New York Islanders play in Uniondale, but are a part of the New York media market because of the "New York" in their name. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in St. Petersburg, but are a part of the Tampa Bay media market because of the "Tampa Bay" in their name. Teams' media markets are generally defined by the location in their name. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, back when the Angels were the "California Angels," did they "serve" all of California? Did hordes of fans from every corner of the state, from the Mexican border up the coast to Pelican Bay, root for the Angels? If so, did all that change the day they became the "Anaheim" Angels? There's more to defining a team's market area than just its name. You challenged me to find a source linking the Angels (and the Ducks) to the "Los Angeles media market". Now I'd like you to find a source that proves the basis for your changes to this article. That's where the burden of proof is anyway. szyslak 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we're going to compare the New York market sports teams, even the New Jersey Devils are part of the New York market even though they're located in New Jersey and called the New Jersy Devils. szyslak is correct; Just by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks location, they are part of the Los Angeles market and both have fan bases in the city of Los Angeles. The Angels heavily markets themself as a Los Angeles team as well as an Orange/Riverside/north San Diego counties team. And both teams are covered as "home" teams by Los Angeles newspapers, radio and TV outlets. --Oakshade 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The California Angels served Anaheim because that's where they played. Like you said, the Texas Rangers don't serve all of Texas; just the "Fort Worth/Dallas area."

And I already gave you proof that they are in a different media market; the maps show that Anaheim and Orange County are in a different media market than Los Angeles is. And ironically, you gave me the map I needed to prove that.

The article is "Los Angeles, California," not "Los Angeles media market's sports teams." The article therefore should be about Los Angeles. Like the old saying, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in Anaheim should stay in the Anaheim, California article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But they serve the city of Los Angeles and market to it. (Why do you think the owenr of the Angeles changed the name of the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?) That's why they've been included in the article and consensus has always kept them here. --Oakshade 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He changed the team's name before the 2004 season. They won the World Series (under different ownership, mind) in 2002. They didn't consider themselves a part of the LA market until Arte Moreno changed the name in 2004, after they won the world series. It's was previously only mentioned in the article anyway because they won the World Series, which they did as the Anaheim Angels. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The teams were mentioned in the article since June of 2002[3], before they won the world series and nobody except you has advocated removing it. --Oakshade 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't all LA teams be mention in the Anaheim article since they all share the same media market.Ramgar11 8-04-07 6:06

Proposal to remove content from article

A user is attempting to remove the following sentence from the article:

“

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks are both based in nearby Anaheim.

”

As this is becoming an edit war, this should be put to a vote.

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of removing mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks content from this article.

# Support Anaheim is Anaheim and Los Angeles is Los Angeles. An encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, should include information about only the subject of the article within its articles. The article is titled Los Angeles, California, meaning it should only include information regarding Los Angeles. Information regarding Anaheim should only be mentioned in the Anaheim, California article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See comment below; condition in which I would support the inclusion of the information in the article. --Ksy92003(talk) 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Under that logic do you advocate removing John Wayne Airport and Long Beach Municipal Airport from the article since they're not within the borders of the city of Los Angeles? (FYI, John Wayne Airport is almost twice the distance from Downtown Los Angeles as Anaheim is). --Oakshade 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

support- La teams are not mention in the anaheim article then Anaheim teams should not be mention in the Los Angeles Article.

Survey - in opposition of removing mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks content from this article

1. Oppose - Both of these teams are in proximity of Los Angeles, both have large fan bases in Los Angeles and both are in the Los Angeles media market and are covered extensively by Los Angeles newspapers and television and radio outlets. --Oakshade 01:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2. oppose. This is a problem that keeps cropping up regarding aspects of the region that aren't in the city. Although this article should try to remain focused within the city limits, there are inevitably topics that are important enough to mention, even if technically outside the city. While we do have an artilce on "Greater Los Angeles", few readers are likely to look there. These teams fit the criteria of sufficiently notable topics. However we should only mention them as neighboring teams, not describe their championships, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

1. Comments:
   • I think we're taking the survey route too soon. We've only been discussing this issue for a couple days. Are we so impatient for a firm consensus to emerge? A solution should naturally arise as more editors participate.
   • I support a solution between the two extremes stipulated in this evil little poll. It should at least be mentioned briefly that the Angels and Ducks serve L.A., with discussion of "greater L.A. area sports" in the article Greater Los Angeles Area. szyslak 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree on that "solution between the two extremes" and feel they should have a mention. That's what consensus and compromise is about. But one user won't even budge on that. [4] [5] [6]. Something needs to be done to break the stalemate. --Oakshade 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would, however, support a portion of the article saying "Los Angeles is a part of the Greater Los Angeles Area, which has the most professional sports teams of any market. Los Angeles' teams include the Lakers and Clippers (NBA), Kings (NHL), Avengers (AFL), Sparks (WNBA), and Dodgers (MLB). The Angels (MLB) and Ducks (NHL) play in nearby Anaheim, and the Galaxy and Chivas USA (MLS) both play in nearby Carson." I would support this if you mention the teams that play in Los Angeles, then the teams that play nearby like in Anaheim and the soccer teams in Carson, and also mention that they are all a part of the Greater Los Angeles Area. I don't support mentioning the Anaheim teams unless you also mention that they are all part of the Greater Los Angeles Area. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2000 census

I have spent a considerable time in LA and would like to ask that was the 2000 consensus the last taken in this city? I was there between 2002 and 2006 and hopefully shall return and thus after reading the 2000 report, I can vouch so much has changed. --bandishhh 1:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the 2000 United States Census. The Census is taken every 10 years, so the next one will be in 2010. The California Department of Finance and the Census Bureau itself have released more up-to-date estimates of the city's population, so that might be worth mentioning here. However, that doesn't mean the Census info should be removed. It's still useful, and still contains valuable information, which I doubt has changed much beyond raw numbers since 2000. szyslak 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, szyslak. Yes I did mean that. :) I agree it shouldn't be removed. --bandishhh 11:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

L.A. County Maps

To Anyone Concerned:

I will be adding in the coming days (or weeks, depending on how long it takes) a series of .SVG maps to Wikimedia Commons showcasing cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to replace the .png maps currently being used in many of the city articles and to add maps to the articles for unincorporated areas that don't have them. This will be similar to what I have already done for all cities in Maricopa County. I have already uploaded one to this article for all to view, so if you would like to see an example of the maps I will upload, check it out.

If anyone has any criticisms or complaints or anything like that, please let me know before I go through and upload some 150 maps to the commons and then change and edit some 150 articles about various cities in L.A. County

Regards, Ixnayonthetimmay 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! This is a huge improvement on the old PNG maps. I do have one minor quibble: I don't think showing San Clemente Island on the maps is necessary. Although it's part of L.A. County, it has no cities, CDPs or other communities. szyslak 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good work, and thanks for doing it. I think that it's helpful to include San Clemente. Folks tend to forget it's part of L.A. Co., and it is inhabited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

College and university gallery

Other than stoking alumni pride, what purpose does this image gallery serve? Should we include community colleges as well? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Very little at all. I am in favor of removing it, but frankly it is the least of this article's problems. Arcimpulse 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Population estimates

I have switched the population in the infobox back to the official US Census estimate. It is lower than the preceeding figure by a significant amount amount. US city articles should be using US Census data for population estimates and figures for the sake of consistency. As has been pointed out, local agencies such as the California department of finance are prone to making overly optimistic estimates regarding city populations, and using these figures when the majority of US city articles use the census data is creating a misleading impression about the size of these cities. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

--This is totally inaccurate!! US census data may be more consistent, but completely wrong, whats the point in publishing wrong information when better info exists???!!! US census is the one that is consistently undercounting due to its lack of recognition of undocumented aliens. See full technical description below before making silly changes!!!

COMPARE THE "METHODOLOGY" UNDER http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E1/E-1text.asp (DEPT OF FIN, CA) and http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2006_st_co_meth.html I ALSO CUT OUT KEY PARTS BELOW:

Census Bureau demographers estimate each component of population change separately from administrative records including registered births and deaths, federal income tax returns, Medicare enrollees, and military movement. (i.e. no undocumented people!)

California: corrects census omissions and geocoding errors. Driver License Address Change (including undoc immigrants). Housing Units are estimated by adding new construction and annexations, and subtracting demolitions and conversions from the 2000 benchmark or a prior year’s estimate. Account for changing vacancy rates such as adding vacancies in areas with rapid housing growth. DLAC: County proportions of the state total result from changes in county population values for births, deaths, school enrollment, foreign and domestic migration, medical aid enrollments, and group quarters population. Ratio-Correlation Method. This method models change in household population as a function of changes in the distributions of driver licenses, school enrollments, housing units, and deaths. Estimates of county group quarters are added. Tax Return Method.County proportions are derived by the U.S. Census Bureau using matched federal income tax returns to estimate inter-county migration along with vital statistics, group quarters, and other information for the population aged 65 and over. Administrative records such as births, deaths, driver license address changes, tax return data, Medicare and Medi-Cal enrollment, immigration reports, elementary school enrollments.

California's Population Unit at the Department of Finance raison de être is because US census does the bare minimum to produce estimates. It is funded every year without fail through the $100 billion plus state budget. California requires reports from all its cities and counties every year as to all the above info. US Census Bureau doesn't even know when cities change their boundaries, when people in-state or inter-state, and doesn't count undocumented peoples.

California publishes lots of up to date data on the web, such as [HIV and AIDS cases] for the month just passed, while US lags years behind. Please stay out of this argument if you don't know what your commenting on!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.93.160 (talk) 05:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.93.160 (talk) 04:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:CITY guidelines, which have been formed for the sake of consistency in wikipedia, the US Census Bureau is the only permissible source for population estimates. No other city article has had a problem with this, even cities, which you as suggest, may be grossly underestimated due to illegals such as El Paso, Texas.--Loodog 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

questionable facts

"In a matter of fact, the city has more Mexicans then any city throughout the entire world besides Mexico City, Mexico." I love how Americans assume the superlative of their country to be the superlative of the ENTIRE WORLD. "Hmm... there's Mexico City, and that's the only city in Mexico, right?" Wrong: Metropolitan areas of Mexico.--Loodog 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a common claim about Los Angeles - that it is the second largest city of many nationalities. L.A. has a total population of 3.8 million, and the population of Guadalajara (the 2nd largest city in Mexico) is 1,651,417, so L.A. would have to have 1.7 million Mexicans. While it's possible that L.A. has that many people of Mexican descent, I'm not sure that it has that many people of Mexican birth. Depending on how we define a "Mexican", this claim is reasonable. However it should be sourced and we should also include the similar claims for other nationalities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course. Seeing as how LA (3.8 million) has 46.5% hispanics, this could be true assuming LA has no non-Mexican hispanics and no hispanics native to this country.--Loodog 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Encarta says:

• After 1965, the Hispanic (often called Latino in California) population grew rapidly. The Mexican community is particularly significant, making up 79 percent of the region’s Hispanic population. More Mexicans live in Los Angeles than in any city except Mexico City. The region has also attracted large numbers of immigrants from Central America. People from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua form the largest Hispanic communities after those of Mexican origin. [7]

That's probably a sufficient source, though tertiary sources are not as desirable as secondary sources. A good source says:

• It is the second-largest Korean, Filipino, Mexican, Armenian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan city. More Samoans live in L.A. than in their homeland. There are 800,000 Canadians, 350,000 Iranians, 100,000 Thais, 350,000 Filipinos, 300,000 Chinese, 450,000 South Koreans, 390,000 Japanese. Immigrant Hispanics from 10 nations number 1.5 million. Children in Los Angeles city schools speak 91 languages. More than 50 foreign-language newspapers circulate. [8]

Some of that info is just plain wrong - for example, the second largest city in the Philippine has over 700,000, so L.A. can't be the 2nd largest Filipino city. We should definitely include this info in the article, but we'll need to research it carefully. . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason this city more than others is subject to fantastic claims about its racial makeup. Never could understand it. Wait, that data contradicts itself. If 79% of the 46.5% of 3.8 million are Mexican descended, you've got fewer than 1.4 million of 'em. Guadalajara has over 1.6 million. You'd need 94% of LA's hispanics to be Mexican to beat Guadalajara.--Loodog 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These numbers are fishy: the populations of foreign nationals listed above adds up to 2,740,000, not including Hispanics. Since it dates from 1992, that would mean that the percentage of foreign born would be over 100%. These numbers may refer to the county or metropolitan area, but I think the reporter was simply sloppy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area of 13 million people, far more than any metro area in Mexico besides Mexico City. If they do mean the metro area (which is likely due to the confusion surrounding the differentiation between the city and the metro, the latter often being referred to as "city of Los Angeles"), then all of these claims could be very reasonable. However, I agree, it seems like just a sloppy reporter. Raime 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I Like the Revised Article

I am in the NYC area and I like this newley redesigned article. Los Angeles is a city that we have heard of and know that movies are shot there, but we never really get to see what the city looks like or is like. This new article gives us a better look at the city. For once, I see Los Angeles as a true city instead of as a big piece of land with only a little portion (downtown) that looks like traditional American cities.

Movies usually take place in LA 'around' downtown or some place else and they show the skyline, but we never get to see it as a city, city. Looking at the movie The Transformers gives us another view as well. For once I was able to say that LA can look like a true city. I was trying to get more views of the city since it is the 2nd largest in the US, but Chicago seems to have the 2nd most impressive skyline. Now I see that LA has a little something too. I always thought of it as having the 3rd most impressive skyline, even though it is the 2nd largest city. It is good to get another view of the city and other buildings for a change. It is also good to see landmarks. I keep forgetting the landmarks or attractions for the town. Now I can see them. I am sure that some have been left out.

Now if a similar thing could be done for Chicago. I would like to know why that city has so many people, why the buildings are so tall and why they keep building them higher, and what attractions they have besides the buildings. I truly cannot name any Chicago attractions outside of the gangster attractions.

Thanks! I added a lot of the pics to this article, and made it look more pleasing. We've been getting a lot of good editors to fix up the articles! Thanks Again :) Pag293 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Pages for Crime and Environmental Issues

Both Chicago and New York City have separate pages for crime, while New York also has its own environment page. Los Angeles, the second largest city in America, should be given separate pages for these two issues. Both issues have played an important role in the city's development as well as its modern history and culture. Jkfp2004 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What an excellent idea. Please feel free to create those articles--Loodog 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attractions article

I've removed the Attractions Article, as there already is one, "Landmarks"

It was also very unaccurate, and listed Disneyland, Six Flags, and Queen Mary in Los angeles, when they are in fact located in neighboring cities, not the city iself. Pag293 09:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

should all LA teams be mention in the Anaheim article.

since the Ducks and Angels are shown in the Los Angeles article because they are in the same media market. should the Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, and Kings be show has Anaheim teams because they share the same media market. Ramgar11Ramgar11 ~~8-04-07 5:55

This topic has been discussed at length on several occasions here, and on countless other city-related articles. For many years the Lakers played in Inglewood at the The Forum. Yet we all knew of them as the "L.A. Lakers", and if Wikipedia had been around then it would have mentioned the team in both the L.A. and Inglewood articles. The greater Los Angeles area contains dozens of cities. If we practiced "reciprocity" in all matters that would mean having dozens of nearly identical sections on media, sports teams, museums, colleges, etc. The compromise is to put most of that info just in the article on the principal city in the area. In addition to L.A., Long Beach, Anaheim, and Santa Ana are all major cities of their own, and so some of this information is indeed worth reproducing there. It could be simply stated that "many major sports teams play in the vicinity, including:..." and then list all of them within a radius, or even simpler, "Anaheim is only X miles from the sports and cultural resources of L.A." If we want to devote extra space to sports teams in the Anaheim article it may be better to list more local teams, like amateur leagues. That's information that we would never have in the L.A. article, so there's no possibility of redundancy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Caltech?

No mention of Caltech? 8/11/07

Cal Tech is in Pasadena but I would have no problem of a sub-article stating that some well known Universities, such as Cal Tech, are in the L.A. Area.

Proposal to post only official U.S. Census Bureau population data not "estimates"

This will help stop the arguments about city population. I think one estimate of over 4 million should be allowed. The U.S. Census Bureau takes official results every ten years (the last being in 2000, and the next due in 2010) interim data provided from the bureau are labeled as estimates [9]. College Watch 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We post the latest Census estimates. No other city article on wikipedia has a problem with this.--Loodog 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I and others have a problem with it because they are not accurate and highly variable. The city limit sign show different numbers than on this site. Until dispute is settled, only "offical" U.S. Census Numbers will be allowed to be posted I agree with College Watch LA Editor 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• This user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:College Watch. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sockpuppet, except that if LA or California likes to overestimate, it won't be by the same amount Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or Cleveland, Ohio does. Los Angeles will just have to accept having declared population of less than 4 million just as Philadelphia accepts having less than 1.5 million.--Loodog 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can treat the U.S. Census Bureau estimates as reliable and consistent across cities. Individual cities have a motivation to inflate their population so their estimates may not be reliable or consistent. We should not wait a full ten years to update the populations of places though if we have better data available. If need be, we can post the 2000 census data along with the latest, best estimates from the Bureau or even, less reliably, the city or state. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, that wasn't the issue. College Watch/LA Editor would say "let's keep official census only", but then put a local estimate in the lead as a way of getting a statement in the intro that LA had over 4 million.--Loodog 12:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the "official census" should be listed with a corresponding estimate (perhaps the current estimate of 3,849,378 with a statement that some estimates project the city to have over 4 million.) Whatever the most accurate estimate the board is coming up with seems debatable. I live in Los Angeles, and every city limit sign that was updated in 2005 says pop. 3,975,456. Current residents and travelers that see the signs and the read the WP article may be confused. Any other user concur? College Watch 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the statement that "some" ^[who?] estimates project over 4 million was what I was objecting to in the first place. I'll accept anything you put on the page that the US Census Bureau has on record. Nothing else.--Loodog 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

this article should be a featured article. put it up as one. you really should. Jimblack 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)jimblack

I removed text which looked like a malformed FAC nom, but was placed inside another FAC. I didn't take the effort to create a correct FAC submission, as this article doesn't appear anywhere near ready for WP:FAC. Text below was removed from within another FAC nomimation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles

- - Comment: Very well done. Nice length, good writing. I think this should definately be featured. Nice detail too. Jimblack 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jimblack

I will deliver quick driveby on tags on this article, hopefully demonstrating its lack of preparation for FA status.--Loodog 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more unsupported facts than supported ones in the history section and odd juxtapositions like "Los Angeles was the first city where AIDS was discovered in the 1980s and the center of many hair metal bands of the decade" are found. Prose has room to improve.--Loodog 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Address the cite needed tags, the unreferenced sections, and remove false claims like "Los Angeles has the largest African-American community in the country", clean up the prose, and I would consider supporting this for FA status.--Loodog 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That was in Western United States, not in the country. Agtaz 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that word "Western", but how about "Los Angeles has the second highest population of Jews in the United States"?--Loodog 12:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what about when it comes to interracial couples within the city? Agtaz 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally love the article because, it's my hometown (my POV), but realistically, the problem here is that many of the edits are not sourced or verified and some edits are leaning a little towards POV (ie demographics), plus many edits are featuring things, places, or events outside the city, thus making the article longer than it should be. If needed, I will love to help to make L.A. to FA status. --Moreau36 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recording

This article is SCARY to record. I can do Spanish pretty well but Franciscan and Portugese? Yikes. Do you people mind if I butcher half the words? I mean..... it's an international city, a featured article, this is probably a very important article to record but I have to stop every two seconds and think about how to pronounce something. What is your opinion? Record for the sake of having the recording or wait until an expert on these various languages and names come along? Davumaya 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything has an Anglicization. Use it.--Loodog 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the article recently achieved GA status and now looks a lot better (conforming closer to my Minneapolis FA article). I shall record! 75.72.162.175 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This article is written very well and has great images (my favorite part), but before it can become a FA the {{Fact}} tags must be addressed, or the non-credible statements removed. I have no intentions to delist this from GA, but someone more sensative to this issue than I just might. I'm avaliable to help if needed. Best, Happyme22 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Coding into HTML is censorship really

I removed a large, all capital letter (shouting?), demand to use statistics that conform to US census and a threat that any change will be "quickly reverted". This type of editing is distructive to wikipedia's "anybody can edit any article" foundational principle and is really an attempt to censor thought and opinion by over riding the discussion talk page; not to mention it confuses newcomers who want to learn how to edit articles and there is no wikipedia page that explains this sort of in-text coding. Plus it just makes the article look amateurish and petty, where debate has failed to form a consensus. Only persons with personal axes to grind need to resort to this sort of thing in my opinion, and the practise should be discouraged.--Mikerussell 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you've just broken WP:3RR. Do not edit war while a topic is being discussed. Though I will not report you since your intentions seem good.

You need to learn how to count. Next time you revert it you will be the one breaking the WP:3RR, so please report it then, will you. Moreover you reverted my edit blindly. I think the term "more" affluent is better then "extremely" when talking about neighborhoods. What does "extremely affluent" mean? 1M, 10M, 100M? More affluent is better because it is just a relative term, noting some areas in LA are wealthier then others. Plus why not include Westwood; it’s near UCLA and very well known neigberhood with its own well written article. --Mikerussell 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above concerning this. While that was the only thing to make it to the talk page, far more people would undaunted ignore the discussion and continue to post California Dept of Commerce estimates since those put the population over 4 million. Some guy even made a section on the California estimates, boasting that Los Angeles was the "second city in American history to achieve this population". I was reverting it everyday because some new anon had the creative idea to change it. No other city article has had any issue with this. On the issue of estimates, there is no discussion, and there are no constructive edits to be made. WP:USCITY and every other US city article on wikipedia, as well as assured concensus only allows US Census estimates and not locals. Following official policies on wikipedia might be argued to be censorship as well such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, yet this is tolerated in the interests of preventing disruption, which is exactly the intent here.--Loodog 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point because basically you have admitted that you are censoring wikipedia with your above comment (you feel personally justified to do it, I guess, which is something very different than collective policy decisions) and that you are involved in the an "edit war" or at least have let some other users goad you into preposterous actions that make the article seem foolish to others when there is no any current discussion under way. I read what was above; the issue is over- let it go. It really just makes you look silly to be insisting you need to bash people, even an anon editor with things like "17,775,984 IS A SMALLER NUMBER THAN 18 MILLION". What the heck does that mean? You need to get a perspective on it. So I hope you take it out yourself, or don't reintroduce it because I have made my point and don't really think the earth will crumble if my way doesn't prevail here.--Mikerussell 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to take this so seriously, but before that notice, users would routinely say the larger metro area has a population of "Over 18 million", then citing the census source, which blatantly contradicted that. I'd really rather work on other things on wikipedia than the reverting constant ignorant changing of information of which there can be no mistake regarding concensus. Feel free to do it for me.--Loodog 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to "I told you so".--Loodog 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable People

Does anyone want to waste a few hours and add a "notable people" section to this article like most cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.230.161 (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the vast majority of cities, Los Angeles has numerous "notable people" that it would be impossible to incorporated into this article. I would be extremely too long. --Moreau36 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, celebrities move in and out of Los Angeles at such an insanely high rate (e.g. David Beckham) that such a list would be nearly impossible to keep current. Such a section should NOT be in this article unless someone is willing to volunteer the HUGE amount of time needed to keep it updated and free of vandalism. --Coolcaesar 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if we decide to go with someone who was born and raised there, that will still be too many folks. I agree, lets keep it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who're interested in such things, we have List of people from Los Angeles and Category:People from Los Angeles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic majority?

Maybe someone can help me with my logic. An editor classified LA has having a Hispanic majority with 46%. Someone reverted that saying there must be at least 50% to be a majority. Consider the example if group W was 20%, group X was 20%, group Y was 20%, but group Z was 40% for a total of 100%. In this case, isn't the group with the largest percentage the majority, even though it has less than 50%? Alanraywiki 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the usual definition of a majority is 50% +1. A group which has the largest number of members, but less than 50% of the population in question is a plurality. If the Hispanic population of Los Angeles is 46%, that is a plurality (assuming no other group has more than 46%). Vgranucci 05:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move disambiguation page

Los Angeles (disambiguation) → Los Angeles — I know some of you will groan at the sight of another move proposal . Yes there have been several unsuccessful proposals to move this article to Los Angeles and I am guessing there won't be much consensus for it in the near future. I tried to get this move done but an admin requested I find consensus on this page first. What I am proposing is that the disambiguation page should be at "Los Angeles" because an uninformed reader is more than likely to be using this as a search term than typing in "Los Angeles (disambiguation)". Please note I am not suggesting we move this article to "Los Angeles". Green Giant 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• Double oppose. Oppose both moving Los Angeles (disambiguation) to Los Angeles and having the discussion here as opposed to being at Talk:Los Angeles (disambiguation). Georgia guy 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I would have put the discussion at Talk:Los Angeles (disambiguation), but the only reason this discussion is here is because of the admins request when declining my speedy request at [10]. Green Giant 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• In fact you are right, and I shall simply copy this over to the correct page. Green Giant 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Annexations.

I don't like this sentence: "In 1915, Los Angeles began the annexation of dozens of neighboring communities without water supplies of their own." First, it is too vague (dozens? how many?) Second, the process of annexation is normally a joint decision. In other words, the petitioning area asks to be annexed, and then it is annexed. Passive voice is very good here. GeorgeLouis 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)