Talk:Chinatown, Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Mid-importance).

violence

In the later half of the 20th Century has there been any violence in the L.A Chinatown that would be an equivalent if not smaller version of the Chinese Revolution back in the 30s? -Teofil Bartlomiej 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court decision on Old Chinatown and Union Station

Is this a U.S. Supreme Court Decision? If so, please replace [[Supreme Court]] with [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]]. If it's a state court decision, replace it with [[Supreme Court of California|Supreme Court]]. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors can also comment at Talk:Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link for understanding

"And like its contemporary scene, San Gabriel Valley’s Asian American history is diverse, and complex, but often ignored and misunderstood." http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/history_heritage/ling_san_gabriel_0408.asp BTW dictionary says city or seaport.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Chinatown Los Angeles California, Restaurants in Chinatown, Pictures of Chinatown" is not all that reliable reference. For example, "Hop Louie has been around since 1941" is not true. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Joe's

All reference to one of Chinatown's most famous businesses keeps being deleted. The material was well-sourced, neutral, and relevant. And yet there's no discussion here. This style of editing is disruptive. Will Beback talk 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Chinatown monuments are important to the article on Chinatown. Culture events in Chinatown are also informative and important. It is not helpful for someone in Canada to make changes to Los Angeles article. Yes, the famous businesses are important to the history of Chinatown. They are as important as the item on filming in Chinatown. There are plenty of articles with these types of items in an article. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain how you can ignore WP:NOTREPOSITORY; I'm not the one from Canada, by the way, and where you are from is absolutely irrelevant to someone's ability to edit an article. Should only people who live within 50 miles from the Atlantic Ocean edit the article Atlantic Ocean? That other stuff exists is a separate issue. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it shouldn't matter where editors live, assuming they put aside regional biases. A reasonable number of photographs of this place are appropriate. Descriptions of the best-known or most important businesses are also appropriate. Will Beback talk 21:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What businesses are the most important or well-known is subjective unless you have numerous concrete sources to prove that it is so; otherwise it could fall under WP:NOTDIR. Again, WP:NOTREPOSITORY says that you must have encyclopedic text to go along with the images, and I see this guideline being ignored countless times on other articles. A picture of a mural painted in 1984 vaguely has something to do with Chinatown's history, but I don't see a single mention of it in the text. Other images such as File:WishingWell.jpg and File:La-chinatown-spiral.jpg are completely irrelevant. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous concrete sources? Why not just one? Is it such a contentious statement that higher than normal sourcing standards are necessary? I don't think it is.

I don't know what rule says that the subjects of pictures need to be mentioned in the text. The pictures that are clearly of Chinatown should be included, up to reasonable limit. I agree that the picture of cooked ducks is rather generic and doesn't add anything specific to the article. The two pictures you name show prominent locations and I don't see why they're irrelevant to this article. Will Beback talk 22:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't Flickr, so we shouldn't be adding random pictures of things that simply look nice. We don't add a dozen different pictures of graffiti and oddly styled buildings to other city or district articles; this one should be held to the same standard. It is getting ridiculous, especially the latest addition of a photo of the eastern gate with neon lighting strung all over it. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings are unique to Chinatown. They are Chinese architectures not seen in other parts of Los Angeles. People living in Los Angeles have better understanding of Chinatown and know the latest information than someone out side the area. 64.183.42.63 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that we should also add photos of unique graffiti in the article about Los Angeles per your reasoning, or maybe a picture of that shiny office building downtown. And again, should people who live within 50 miles from the Atlantic Ocean be more privileged to edit Atlantic Ocean? "Knowing the latest information" to add because they live in LA is WP:OR. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, the movie

Would someone please explain to me the space devoted to the movie " Rush Hour"? It seems like a lot of [undue weight] and even more mystifying to me is, if you are going to feature a move, why the heck isn't it the classic "Chinatown"? It features Jack Nicolson, at his finest , before he started taking roles where he only plays " Jack Nicolason. Been wondering about this for awhile now, esp, since the movie has many great scenes of Chinatown before the many renovations. TY. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The material is essentially unsourced anyway, and appears to be original research. I don't remember how Chinatown looked in Chinatown (film). In any case, it certainly deserves a mention if we can find a source. This one isn't much help. " [The film's title, according to Towne, referred to a 'state of mind' rather than an actual geographic place.] [..] In the startling and despairing ending scene, the only scene in the film that actually takes place in Chinatown... The sequence opens in the circumscribed area beyond true police and governmental control with passing views of neon-lighted Chinese restaurants and colorful lanterns... [1] Will Beback talk 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown was not important to the film Chinatown, only the fact that Nicolson's charteracter was a beat cop in Chinatown before and was told to look elsewhere. 64.183.42.63 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct. Nonetheless, it merits at least a brief mention. Will Beback talk 22:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What was that line? She's both his daughter and mother of his child? Ucla90024 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close.

She's my sister and my daughter! [2]

The famous last lines is:

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown!

I'm not sure if it was even filmed in Chinatown. Will Beback talk 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's the line. Yes the last scene was filmed in Chinatown. I remember, at one of the gates. The West Gate. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

East gate is the most important structure in Chinatown and should be included in article. Also the roast duck photo was illustration to the text "with glass displays of roast duck and suckling pig", which is uniqeness of Chinatown. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are relevant. Our respected resident admin agrees. Please do not delete. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your "respected resident admin" agrees that the roast duck picture is too generic and should be deleted. As for the other image, please tell me where in any part of the article does it mention something about the east gate of Chinatown. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. No reason for Daedalus969 to delete them. Badge714 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucla90024, I'm sure you know that using sockpuppets to reinforce your own opinion is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. These two accounts write in the same style and your edit times conveniently do not overlap, sometimes even directly continuing the same editing pattern on the other account. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grayshi, where in the policies and guidelines do you see a requirement that the subject of a photo be mentioned in the text? (Sock puppet issues belong on other pages, like WP:SPI.) Will Beback talk 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTREPOSITORY - "If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." Besides that, it's one of those unwritten common sense rules that images should be placed in moderation. Otherwise there would be a ridiculous amount of photos that barely relate to the subject on every article. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't say that there needs to be text. The context of a picture of a Chinatown landmark in an article about Chinatown is obvious. Will Beback talk 21:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A line still has to be drawn somewhere. My interpretation of "encyclopedic context" is that there must be sufficient textual support, whether in the caption or the main text, to justify why it belongs. Otherwise there are probably hundreds upon hundreds of images that could be added just because it was taken in or slightly relates to Chinatown. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any editors who would draw the line the same way you're doing. Why don't you restore the photo and add a caption? That'd improve the article. Deleting a photo of a landmark is not productive. Will Beback talk 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Many images seem like they better belong in a gallery section so I'll try that; however, I don't see any reason for that generic roast duck picture to remain. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they better in a gallery?

Separately, the Los Angeles Public Library has a digital archive of photographs, many of them old enough to public domain. [3] Many of them are unclear, but there are a couple that'd be useful, including a dragon parade. Will Beback talk 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A panorama of a dragon parade across the bottom of the article would be awesome! DocOfSoc (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there isn't one around maybe someone can create one next New Year. As for the old photo, here's a dragon parade,[4] but it's kind of murky. Here are two of the better pictures.[5][6] Will Beback talk 02:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Balance

I believe that there should be a balance of pictures that is pleasing to eye and appropriately placed in article. Galleries are relatively bottom heavy and do not add to associative material in many articles. I give up the duck! I still think the historically prominent Felipe's should have an image but am not going there ATM. I believe there is a good balance now. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoburb?

I don't understand why ethnoburb is used in the lead paragraph. From the wiki article "ethnoburb": "An ethnoburb is a suburban residential and business area in North America with a notable cluster of a particular ethnic minority population."

Chinatown is not suburban and so is not an ethnoburb. The coiner of the term ethnoburb used it specifically to contrast Chinatown with L.A.'s suburban Asian population centers.

130.76.64.93 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Chinatown vs. New Chinatown

The article should revisit and clarify the terminology. It currently seems to use the label "Old Chinatown" to refer to the original Chinatown area that's now Union Station and "New Chinatown" to refer to the current day Chinatown. But the trouble is that "New Chinatown" has been established for 75 years now and as such, it's now frequently referred to as "Old Chinatown". Indeed, the "Old Chinatown" name for the area is even semi-official. The merchants' association for the area is the Los Angeles Old Chinatown Merchants Association, the famous plaza is referred to as "Old Chinatown Plaza" pretty much as often (including if you look it up on Google Maps) as it is called just "Chinatown Plaza", etc.

As a result, you get things like the current last paragraph of the Old Chinatown section of this article, which is actually referring to what this article calls "New Chinatown". But whoever wrote that paragraph doubtless added it to the Old Chinatown section because "Old Chinatown" is the name that they know for what the article calls "New Chinatown". When it comes to the use of the phrase "Old Chinatown", there's definitely a "Which 'Old Chinatown' are you talking about?" factor that's pretty confusing. I wonder if, at least for the section headers, the article shouldn't just avoid "old" and "new" and instead use something like "Original Chinatown" and "Current Chinatown" instead. What do others think? Mwelch (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who now frequently referred to as "Old Chinatown"? Provide sources. Socalphoto (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually mentioned of a few them. The name of the plaza itself is "Old Chinatown Central Plaza". But for additional reference detail:

The website for the merchants' association in the area

The result you get if you search Google Maps for "Los Angeles Chinatown Central Plaza"

Associated Press news article about a Wal-Mart opening in the area ("Old Chinatown, as it's now known, was actually New Chinatown when it welcomed the public on June 25, 1938")

Los Angeles Times piece by author Linda See, who grew up in Chinatown, where she talks about how things have changed since her childhood ("what used to be called New Chinatown is now Old Chinatown")

Tourist website about the area

Mwelch (talk)

Don't know who is Linda See, but I have photographed both Lisa See and her mother. If there is no "New Chinatown" and only "Old Chinatown", then why not just say "Chinatown"? "Chinatown Plaza" and Chinatown's "Central Plaza" are not the same place. The picture used in the Old Chinatown Plaza stay.com article do not match the article about "Central Plaza". Proposed WalMart is located on the very edge of Chinatown, the north side of Sunset/Cesar Chavez Ave., using the very under used residential/ground floor commercial building. Socalphoto (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whom are you asking? If you're asking me, I'm not the one who decided to start calling it "Old Chinatown" instead of "New Chinatown" or just "Chinatown". So I have no earthly idea why. And I also fail to see what difference it makes. I'm just pointing out the fact (with references included) that lots of people do call it "Old Chinatown" ... regardless of whether you or I or anyone else likes it or thinks that they should. And as long as the article ignores that fact, it will retain the potential to be confusing to those who wind up hearing the area referred to by the "Old Chinatown" name.

I'm glad to hear you that you have photographed LISA See and her mother. I'm sure that your having done so makes you now immune to the possibility of ever mistakenly mistyping someone's name. Congratulations on your possession of that skill that I so clearly lack. Of course, neither of those accomplishments on your part has anything whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China(town). But hey, don't let fact that's it's totally irrelevant to the issue of this article and of what name or names the area is known by stop you from bringing it up. Since you're so tight with her, perhaps your question about why it's become known to many as "Old Chinatown" might be more properly directed toward her. She's the one who wrote that it was so, not me.

With regard to the article about the Wal-Mart, the point there was not how far into Chinatown was the location of that specific store. The issue was whether there are references that support the statement that the "New Chinatown" area is nowadays frequently referred to as "Old Chinatown". That article is such a reference, since it does so quite clearly and unambiguously, including explicitly stating that the area originally christened as "New Chinatown" is now known as "Old Chinatown".

You are certainly correct that the picture on the stay.com article does not match the central plaza mentioned in the text. But the point is that neither the picture nor the text are talking about the area that is now Union Station. Both the picture and the text are the area that this article calls "New Chinatown", though the article refers to it as "Old Chinatown". Another example demonstrating that people do call it that. Mwelch (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chinatown, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118222446/http://camla.org:80/lanternfestival.html to http://www.camla.org/lanternfestival.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinatown, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinatown, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

Wilbur Woo, according to the Los Angeles Times: "In 1978, The Times called Woo "one of the leading citizens of Chinatown."" Not a notable people? Socalphoto (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good source. Thank you. What is the headline for the story, or the date? Anybody can add the citation, but I will do it if it doesn't get done by somebody else first. Yours in wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

climate data is a distraction

I find it a bit disconcerting to see the display of climate data at § Geography and climate, added in edit of 09:22, 23 March 2021. I'm sure that inclusion of climate data has been discussed numerous times before, one instance is this discussion at Project Cities Archive from 2014.

I am not looking to see an "improved presentation" (well, aside from replacing this with an obscure link in the page footer, linked to something completely off-page). I don't think this belongs. Removing it would be an improvement. Please express your opinion. Fabrickator (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ley005 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ley005 (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]