Talk:San Jose, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Jose, California article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Former featured article San Jose, California is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 9, 2005.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 1 (top) 
    Archive
    Archives
    Archive 1 - Sep 2004 - Dec 2006


    Contents

    [edit] Demographics

    The following statement is under demographics: "San José is considered more secular in terms of religious belief and it may explain why San José has had a large active gay and lesbian lifestyle community for over two decades, mostly centered in the downtown sections."

    As far as I see it there are four problems with it, and all should be addressed: 1. Why is it under demographics, I guess it somewhat makes sense but is there a better place for this? 2. According to who/what is "San José is considered more secular in terms of religious belief"? 3. According to who/what has "San José has had a large active gay and lesbian lifestyle community for over two decades, mostly centered in the downtown sections." 4. According to who/what is it that the statement in 2 "may explain" the statement in 3. Is this just common knowledge I'm missing here does a being considered secular lead to having gays and lesbians have an "active gay and lesbian lifestyle community"?

    I hope that answers to these questions can be brought forward, or at least if not, a valid justification as to why we should keep the statement there. --JVittes 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Changed population estimates

    To see my reasoning for another article, please see Talk:San Diego, California#Repeated boosterism. The reasoning is the same although the numbers are different. Thank you. Ufwuct 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Required talk page post for dubious tag

    Please see my diff. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    I concur with your position. That outlandish claim needs to be sourced or it must go.--Coolcaesar 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Neighborhood list

    The neighborhood list seems to lack Northside. http://www.northside-sj.org/ 67.169.162.85 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Population

    The population numbers have been changed to reflect a population of more than 1 million people, but I have failed in finding any reliable source to back uip these changes, if anybody can help find it, then that would be great, (the user also changed SF's population to ~812k if that helps). Otherwise I will have no choice but to revert to the 2005 numbers listed before. --JVittes 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

    912,332[1]. Thanks for reverting, but I'm not sure where you got the 953,679 figure from. Ufwuct 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't see this talk page entry until after I made my changes to the table. The reference for metro population doesn't match what's in the table. I think we should revert to the 2005 number there at least, unless someone has a reference for the larger number. Re the city population, it seems to me that the more recent US DOF estimate is more likely to be accurate today than the older census number, but it's ok with me if the consensus is to stick with census data. --Steve Pucci | talk 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oops, sorry, it's the CA DOF, not the US DOF. Well, I still think it's a better source, but like I say, I'll go with the consensus. --Steve Pucci | talk 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] San Jose is one of Americas Fattest cities?

    I found this website claiming that san jose is one of americas fattest cities and not sure if it should be included in here and where if so. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_he_me/fittest_city

    [edit] FMC History?

    From my memory and the internet articles I could find, the Bean Spray Pump Company (forerunner to FMC) was founded in 1884, not 1883, and was actually founded in Los Gatos, moving to San Jose in 1903. If no one can contradict or provide any more information, I will edit that section and provide the appropriate references: http://engines.rustyiron.com/stable/sprayer.html http://www.fmctechnologies.com/History.aspx Dtcomposer 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Just caught some more vandalism

    On 27 December 2006, 63.3.14.1 inserted some subtle vandalism into the lead regarding the use of "L.A. North" as an alternative nickname for San Jose (which, frankly, is preposterous and false as any lifelong California resident knows). No one noticed this vandalism until I finally detected it this afternoon and deleted it.

    If we get hit with another wave of vandalism, this article may require indefinite semi-protection. --Coolcaesar 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] population table

    If anyone has more time than me, the demographics section is lacking a population by year table like that found in the Los Angeles and Chicago articles. The information is available here.--Loodog 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] 'Media' section

    The Media section contains sprawling lists (Television and Radios sub-sections) that do not belong to the main article. Either create a separate list and/or rewrite this section. I'd put the

    		 It has been suggested that this list should be changed into a table format to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
    This list may be better presented as a table. Please help improve this list, prune it, or discuss it on the talk page.
    This article has been tagged since January 2008.

    tag there, but since it's a featured article, I want to discuss it first.--Svetovid 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


    I don't know how to edit this but I think something should be added about Hyphy music, or at least mention that San Jose is part of "The Yay Area."69.181.94.42 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] History section History section History section History section History section

    The history section is painfully too long and need to be split into its own article. Its length is seriously detracting from the article.--Loodog 03:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Featured Article Review coming up

    I am going to nominate this article for a review. This article is nowhere near featured article quality. Not enough references; refs aren't correctly formatted; there are entire sections that are lists; there is no media section; generally, the article would fail such a review as it is right now. Unless someone has a very good reason not to review this article, it needs to be demoted. Okiefromokla•talk 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    I second your motion. See my above history section comment.--Loodog 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've nominated it.--Loodog 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] 'Crime' section

    The crime section says San Jose has the worst crime in the US but when I check the sources they say San Jose is the safest big city. Did someone vandalize the crime page?

    Yes. I undid the vandalism. San Jose is in fact ranked as the US's safest big city.

    Well, i recently heard that some other city kicked it off of the top, so i wouldnt be too sure.

    As i live in San Jose, i Definitely understand it being up there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.103.90 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Greghe 01:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Population, again

    I have switched the population in the infobox back to the official US Census estimate. It is lower than the preceeding figure by a nontrivial amount. As has been stated above (multiple times), 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) 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    Although I agree with using a consistent source across all articles; I don't necessary believe that the Census Bureau's estimates are better, worse, or more or less biased than state or local agencies. A quick dive into the archives shows the Census Bureau estimates for cities like San Jose, San Francisco, and Long Beach during the mid to late 1990s were well under:
    City 1996 Census Bureau Est. 1997 Census Bureau Est. 1998 Census Bureau Est. 1999 Census Bureau Est. 2000 Official Census
    San Jose 836,136 851,528 862,637 867,675 894,943
    San Francisco 735,228 740,993 745,756 746,777 776,733
    Long Beach 425,639 427,941 431,263 435,027 461,522
    Notice how the cities' populations all jumped by 25,000 to 30,000 from the 1999 estimate to the 2000 Census. Even with the dot-com boom (which would have affected SF and SJ, but not this much, and wouldn't have affected LB by nearly this much), this shows that the Census Bureau was under-estimating through the 1990s. Unless the Census Bureau's methodology has changed, there's no reason to think they're not under-estimating now as well.
    So, not to say that the State Dept. of Finance is going to be any more accurate, or that we shouldn't be using a consistent source from article to article, but remember that the Census Bureau estimates are just that - estimates, and have been proven to be less than accurate in the past. Dtcomposer 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    US Census estimates are notoriously conservative and they have been for some time - I believe this is intentional. I did not mean to imply that they were especially accurate - my whole point was simply about being consistent. Arkyan • (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Proposal: Creation of an article about the US Market Access Center

    I'm proposing the creation of an article about the US Market Access Center, an incubator in Downtown San Jose. As it is one of the four incubators started as part of the Incubator Program of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, I believe that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (as is the San Jose Redevelopment Agency itself, but that is a different discussion). I should disclose my COI on the matter, however, as I am currently an employee of the US MAC. MasterCKO (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "highest median income"

    This statement in the article was called into question...

    In 2000, San Jose residents had the highest median household income of any city with a population over 300,000, and currently has the highest median income of any city with over 225,000 people.

    An anonymous editor added a "dubious" tag and this remark in the article text.

    The 2006 American Community Survey taken by the U.S. Census Bureau clearly shows (in table B19013 - Median Household income) that San Jose does not, by far, have the highest median income.

    The kind of text which should go in the article should be something which reads like an encyclopedia and flows like a single body of text. I removed the comment because it's what Wikipedians call "unencyclopedic". The article text is not the place to have a debate over content. However, I brought the remark here to the talk page where discussion should take place. I don't know who added the figure in the first place. But now it has been called into question. Let's find the proper references and, as necessary, update the figure in the article text. For references, URLs do the most good because other editors can quickly verify them. Ikluft (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    The table referenced above can be found at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/users_guide/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.185.100 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)