This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as High-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[History of Los Angeles#The Transitional Era 1848.E2.80.931870|city of Los Angeles]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

If the subject's main article has information that he or she is linked to East L.A., then I believe that person can be listed here. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Much of this article reads like WP:Original research, and it bodes well to be challenged and removed unless some sources are attached to the information. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

ArtLosAngeles's expanded definition of the East side, based entirely on theeastsiderla.com, seems all wrong and contrary to common usage. That's an advertising paper or something. I don't know of any reliable sources for the idea that any part of the city West of Downtown counts as the East side. I'm about to revert it all per WP:BRD and then maybe we can talk about it here.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I live here in the Eastside, and common usage of Eastside to refer to this region is endemic and the The Eastsider LA, a wholly legitimate community online newspaper, is evidence of this. I'm not an expert at debating things on wikipedia, so I don't all the protocols, but I'm happy to add additional references as needed to block the revert. The debate that occurred on "Which Way LA?" including the bulletin board discussion on KCRW, also a wholly legitimate news source, further evidence the debate and the redefinition of Eastside to be more expansive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtLosAngeles ( talk • contribs)

But which version of the East side do you live on? Seriously, though. Regardless of what the Eastsider says, they're probably not going to overcome the LA times mapping project and just about every other reliable source that's ever written on the subject. The Eastsider has an ulterior motive for including as many neighborhoods as possible in their coverage area, and there's no particular reason to consider them reliable anyway. What kind of sources do you have that say the East side includes, e.g. Echo Park or Atwater Village? I just don't believe there are any. The East side starts East of Alameda at the Westernmost. On a side note, did you hear the other day that the Silver Lake neighborhood council actually announced publicly that they were going to stop pretending to be part of the East side?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Did you even read the Dennis Romero article you put in? No one seriously thinks the East side goes West of Downtown LA. The only question is where does the West side start. This is what you're up against, to start with.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not under debate, regardless of what Dennis Romero says. Seriously, please try to talk rather than reverting over and over again.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I also agree it's not under debate. Various sources say Eastside is east of Downtown. The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council officially voted it is not the East Side, and those areas east of Downtown are the East Side. I am editing the article to reflect this. http://laist.com/2014/02/06/silver_lake_admits_that_its_not_the.php. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 03:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Right, but I think it's undue weight to discuss it at such great length in the lead of the article. Also, the list of communities is seriously messed up now and has a zillion wrong things on it. Atwater Village???? I think we ought to go back to here and, if necessary, put in one sentence about Silver Lake waking up to the fact that they're not on the East side, although it's like Fort Lee voting that it's not in Manhattan and there isn't the sourcing to give it much weight. All this discussion in the very lead paragraph about what this one online "newspaper" thinks is so very undue.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

And why have all those Northeast neighborhoods when (a) they're not on the East side, they're Northeast, and (b) we have Northeast Los Angeles, which has a list of them, as is appropriate.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

And Historic Filipinotown isn't even Northeast of Downtown, it's Northwest of Downtown, and not only that, there's an article for that too: Northwest Los Angeles. The article is seriously messed up and I really think we ought to revert and just add a line or two.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• If it's on the west side of the Los Angeles River, it's not the East Side. East Side is only east of the LA River. I have much less problem throwing the Northeast in with the East Side than I do throwing in Silverlake, Echo Park, and Los Feliz in with the East Side. I would support Alf's suggestion of reverting the addition of those neighborhoods p b p 04:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, I agree with you about the river (although I do remember you once arguing that West LA started at Alvarado Street, but bygones are gone by and all that). I think it's a mistake to put Northeast neighborhoods in here given that there's already a whole article about them. I think that, given the historical marginalization of the East side in cultural imagery of LA and the fact that moving its boundary ever westward contributes to that, it's important to get this right, no matter what the neighborhood councils think they're doing.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I think I said somebody else argued that to me, FWIW. p b p 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

You're right, I remember who it was now!— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

"Halving the city"

When I stumbled upon this discussion, I noticed that the article contains the text about halving the city between East and West. I find this to be a false dichotomy, and it is perfectly acceptable for parts of Los Angeles to be in neither East nor Westside. Therefore, I propose that the halving language be removed, and replaced with the Westside begins somewhere b/w Alvarado and La Brea p b p 04:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Support removal of halving language

1. p b p 04:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Yes, but see below.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose removal of halving language

Revert to here

The "halving the city" language is part of a massive amount of nonsense, all sourced to a random website called theeastsider.com, added today by ArtLosAngeles. That's not a reliable source for anything, and contrasting its opinions about what's where with every reliable source in the world is a massive violation of WP:UNDUE. I therefore propose that we revert to here and then cautiously, if deemed necessary, add a small sentence or two about the risible fact that Silver Lake thought for one hot second that it was on the East side.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Support revert to here

1. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Pretty obviously just a blog. Anything to get the "If you're not Westside, you're Eastside" B.S. out of the article p b p 05:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose revert to here

I reverted it back to my preferred revision even though it's still under discussion because now the bot found a zillion links to dab pages and put a template at the top of the article. I don't want to fix all the dab links because it seems likely that the material will all be removed soon enough so the work will be wasted. Furthermore, the preferred method for BRD is to discuss changes while the page remains at status quo ante, which is where I have returned it to.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I asked for an expert opinion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_http:.2F.2Fwww.theeastsiderla.com.2Fneighborhoods_reliable_for_which_neighborhoods_are_on_the_East_side_of_LA.3F. If the experts say that it's not, perhaps we can focus our discussion down a little more into how much coverage, if any, this recent kerfluffle about Silver Lake and Echo Park claiming East side cred should get in our article.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Conversation between me and Daniel E. Romero moved here from my talk page to allow for wider discussion I agree with you to clean up the Eastside article to be just those neighborhoods East of Downtown LA. However, the information about the Silver Lake Neighborhood council their vote should be included in the article because its relevant. Could you bring it back somehow? Thanks. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, it should have a short section at the end of the article. I'll get around to it soon or you can do it, but the important thing is to avoid both recentism and undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

End of moved conversation

The more I think about including material on this the less sure I am. The laist.com article on the Silver Lake NHC isn't much of a source, being mostly a series of jabs at Silver Lake yuppies. Similarly with the LA Weekly thing about five ways to look at the East side. I don't think this particular manifestation of the issue made the LAT, but maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not sure if we can find enough actually reliable sources reporting on the issue to be able to write much material. I know it looms large in the local consciousness, but is it discussed in secondary sources? I'll think about it, and maybe someone can suggest something here? The LAT seems to spend a lot more time debating where the West side ends than it does where the East side begins. The probable answer to the first question can certainly be found in The Day of the Locust.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 21:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

OK, the LA Times finally weighed in on the matter, allowing me to make a first attempt at a reliably sourced discussion of the matter. See what you all think.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

First of all, I prefer the heading "Contested geography" for this section because "misconceptions" doesn't sound neutral to me, even though I agree that the ideas described in the section are misconceptions. There's no reason to use a loaded term to describe the issue.

Second, I think that including this sentence: Further holding, that Eastside is east of downtown, and does not include adjacent areas to Silver Lake. is giving undue weight to the opinions of the SLNC. They're not experts, they're not a reliable source, their opinions on almost anything are irrelevant, so who cares if they vote that the east side starts east of downtown? Putting it in the article seems to me to be giving undue weight to the SLNC. What if the SLNC voted that Mars was part of South LA? Who cares?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

re: SLNC vote. SLNC is a quasi-govermental group set up by the City. Their votes do matter as far as being influential to future city policy, one of which is neighborhood boundaries, marks, etc. Moreover, if you read the full opinion, they like Garcetti, base their opinion on their long-standing history with the City. Thus, just like Garcetti's opinion is highlighted in the article, this should be also. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 20:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not quasi-governmental and it's not set up by the city. It's set up by its members and recognized by the city. Anyone can set up a neighborhood council as long as they get enough signatures and anyone can join and participate in the governance of the council. They're certainly not reliable sources for anything, and their activities and pronouncements are notable only insofar as they're reported on by reliable sources. This is why I think their opinion about what the East side is isn't important enough to put into this article. What they think about their own neighborhood is only worth putting in because the LA Times reported on it.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This remark was wrong six years ago, and it is wrong today. There is an extremely bureaucratic method of setting up neighborhood councils, all governed by the City of L.A. and financed by the city. I am sure that people understand that by now. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply