Ž

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Los_Angeles/Archive_5&action=info

174.250.208.24 ( talk) 11:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Could somebody please archive this rather lengthy page so we can start anew with discussion on a way to make this article better than it is? Also, I am assuming that "the month" referred to is November 2008. Correct? Yours in happiness with all things Angel-ic, I remain, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 03:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the discussions ( diff). Since {{ CurrentCityCOTM}} is brand new the month referred to would indeed be November 2008. - Optigan13 ( talk) 05:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The two areas that I see need the most work are the History and Neighborhood Councils sections. The history sections is poorly balanced, devoting too much space to the founding, and not enough to the 20th century. It omits the Watts Riot, which was important to the whole country, but mentions gentrification, which is common and less remarkable. The Neighborhood Councils section is unreferenced and too long anyway. They are not major centers of powers in the city, and while some fist fights make it into the press they're otherwise ignored. The section can probably be pared down to a sentence or two in the government section. Otherwise the articles seems fairly well-balanced. While I'm fond of the flora section, I'm wondering if it should be cut - plants are regional by their nature so it's not a city-specific topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WHy does the the term LA LA Land redirect here? There's not mention of the "LA LA Land" in the article. If anything this refers to an idyllic location, a fantasy world. Lihaas ( talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object if you changed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never associated the state of profound tiredness, drunkenness, or schizophrenia with LA. Not sure how that got sent here. Go for it.-- Loodog ( talk) 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what it should be redirected to. I'll leave it to you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Los Angeles County, California be moved to Los Angeles County. See discussion and survey at Talk:Los_Angeles_County,_California#Requested_move. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What do local Los Angelinos call there city? I used to live there and I recall lɑs ˈændʒɪlɪs. Any other options? ( Taivo ( talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm a native, and I don't ever recall hearing a native speaker use an [ɪ] in either syllable. The last syllable often has a schwa. The mid syllable is too reduced to be much of anything, but it certainly is not [ɪ]. If you want a local pronunciation, we need to state it's local. Otherwise the assumption is that it's simply the English pronunciation, not any specific dialect. kwami ( talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With placenames, the local pronunciation should always take precedence unless its a foreign place, in which case a "generic" English pronunciation should prevail. The town of Hooper near my home is [ˈhʊpɚ], not *[ˈhupɚ] and Tooele is [ˈtwɪlə]. For example, the town in Idaho is [ˈmɑsko], but the town in Russia is [ˈmɑskaʊ]. ( Taivo ( talk) 05:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

As another native of Southern California (and as a linguist), I would say that the local (and General Western US) pronunciation of the city's name is [lɑˈsændʒɨlɨs]. For speakers of North American dialects with an open o, I've heard [lɔˈsændʒɨlɨs]. The pronunciation listed in the article ([lɒˈsændʒɨlɨs]) reflects a pronunciation that happens to match the British (RP) version, but I'm pretty sure it's there simply because it represents a pronunciation from which other dialectal pronunciations can be derived (not because it's British). I think we can keep it as it is, unless someone wants to add the "local" (General Western) pronunciation. -- SameerKhan ( talk) 06:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This word is not pronounced with a high central unrounded vowel [ɨ]. It is either pronounced with ə or ɪ, but definitely not with [ɨ]. (In some dialects of Western American English, there is a phonetic [ɨ], but it occurs in words like "just" and "cool" and "Coors", not in the words where OED uses ɪ.) ( Taivo ( talk) 06:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you mean by "just", "cool", and "Coors" being pronounced with the same vowel in Western American English... I can maybe see how (in connected speech) "just" might be pronounced with an unstressed (and maybe lax) [ɨ], but not "cool" or "Coors", which would have a tense, stressed, pressed-lips [ʉ] instead of a spread-lips [ɨ]. The use of [ɨ] to represent a reduced vowel near coronal sounds in English is fairly common, although I agree, since there is no phonemic [ɨ], it's probably more appropriate to be a little more vague and just use a schwa (even if it is phonetically closer to [ɨ]). -- SameerKhan ( talk) 06:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ˈkɨɹz or ˈkɨɻz] is considered to be the "correct" pronunciation in much of the Western U.S. (especially the non-urban West). ( Taivo ( talk) 07:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

I see. I've never heard that, but then again I don't spend a lot of time in the rural west! It is interesting though; do you know of a reference for this? Thanks! -- SameerKhan ( talk) 07:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The German version of Wikipedia references http://www.laalmanac.com/history/hi03b.htm with the claim that the name was not originally "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula" as stated in the English version (but "El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles"). 85.177.250.89 ( talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the L.A. Times on the matter. " How Did Los Angeles Get Its Name?" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The population of Los Angeles right now is 4,045,000. So can you please change it to this amount. It says this is Los Angeles's popuation on the southern california wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.141.81 ( talk) 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On city pages the standard is to use Census Bureau data only. There are many other estimates, but they all have various problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"The City of Los Angeles, California's largest city, has a population of 4,045,873" -California Department of Finance, 2008

If the CDF is not a reliable source, then what is? The US Census Bureau? There were so many problems with the 2000 US Census that some demographers have estimated that the census numbers were "off" by 5-10%. No source is fully accurate and, therefore, for the sake of providing up-to-date information (a Wikipedia priority), the population figure should be updated to the 2008 figure provided by the CDF. LA's Jan 1, 2008 population certainly wasn't exactly 4,045,873, but the 2006 figure of 3.8 million is hardly relevant considering LA's population has been increasing 30,000 to 50,000 each year since 2000.

What is more important to Wikipedia: the source of the information or the relevance of the information?

The CDF, by Wikipedia's definition, is a reliable source and also provides relevant, accurate, and up-to-date information. That's as good as it gets in the imperfect world of statistics.

BDS2006 ( talk) 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have this ****ing debate again? Vgranucci ( talk) 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I count at least six previous threads in the talk page archive index on this topic. Could editors please read those before we get into this again? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that someone edited the article and switched the populations of the metro and urban populations of Los Angeles. The metropolitan population should be around 13 million and the urban population should be around 18 million. I am unable to correct the article, (it is semi-protected) so if someone else could that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgadams ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to state the city's subway system is the 9th busiest, and the light rail line is the 3rd busiest. This is exactly the same system, as some of the light rail lines eventually go underground as subway stations for a few stops. This is also true in Chicago and New York, as most of their lines are elevated for a portion of the route, and then are subwayed on other portions. But they do not rank ridership based on the elevated and subway portions. It would be more appropriate to just rank Los Angeles based on ridership of its rapid transit system versus other cities. Some cities, like Chicago and New York, have heavy rail; while some cities, like Los Angeles and Portland, have light rail. Since both types are rapid transit, they can be compared together when ranking cities by ridership. To a lesser degree, it may be okay to rank by ridership of light rail only; although that may not give the reader an accurate perception as most people do not really think heavy rail or light rail, they just think of rapid transit, train service, or L service. But it doesn't make sense to rank ridership by elevated platforms and subway platforms of the same line. That's just wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 ( talk) 20:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles has three rail lines used for public transportation: Los Angeles County Metro Rail, Metrolink, and Amtrak. My guess is that those figures may treat one or more Metro Rail lines as a subways or light rail, while Metrolink may count as heavy rail. We'd have to look at the actual study to see exactly how they make the distinctions. In any case, all we can do is summarize what the sources say.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Light rail is not rapid transit. rapid transit ranking goes by APTA's rapid transit figures and light rail ranking goes by APTA's light rail figures. I mean we could rank by them by total I suppose, but what that would mean isn't really clear.-- Loodog ( talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To clarify on this issue, the Red Line is not a light rail line. It's considered "heavy rail," like the New York and Chicago systems. All other Metro Rail lines are considered light rail. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to separate statistics between the Red Line and other Metro Rail services. szyslak ( t) 21:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As Loodog and Szyslak pointed out, the Red and Purple Lines are classified as heavy rail (rapid transit)--and not just because they're underground--while the Green, Gold, and Blue Lines are classified as light rail (not rapid transit). Metro ridership statistics are divided up into Purple/Red (the heavy rail lines), Blue, Green, and Gold, so APTA can use the figures separately. The same thing is done for Boston (the Green Line is not rapid transit while the other lines are), Philadelphia, etc. Metrolink is classified as a commuter rail network, so that's counted separately. Amtrak is regional. -- SameerKhan ( talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This article gets vandalized so much it's funny that the entire section about freeways was taken out about five months ago and no one noticed. This is Los Angeles! THE CITY OF FREEWAYS, PEOPLE! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 09:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any freeway section in the history. There was a single sentence on freeways that was deleted back in July. [1] All the rest is covered in other articles.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The intro calls it a "beta+ world city". This seems like the arbitrary opinion of one particular study. It's not defined on this page or the world city page. It's certainly not a well-known term. Neither New York City nor London feels the need to list their alpha++ status. I think it should be removed.

128.111.8.104 ( talk) 23:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead and moved to the economy section since the study is mostly focused on economic independence and integration globally. LonelyMarble ( talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked on reference 85 and it's a half-dead link. The link goes to another page but that page doesn't have the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.135.102 ( talk) 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau

The link above should be www.discoverlosangeles.com

Wkarz999 ( talk) 01:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to work. Ucla90024 ( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Music of Los Angeles article should be merged into this article. Music of Los Angeles is short enough that it could be merged in with little trouble. -- An Enormous Laser Beam ( talk) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Robinsons-May is no longer an independent company. It has been bought out by Federated. The stores have been renamed Macy's as you can note by visiting the Westside Pavilion.

Cosus ( talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Michael, 6/29/09

{{editsemiprotected}} This page says there are three public universities within the city limits, but fails to mention California State University Dominguez Hills!? Please add CSUDH to the list!

Done --   Nx/ talk  11:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• CSUDH is not located in the City of Los Angeles, but in the unincorporated portion of County of Los Angeles, surrounded by the City of Carson. The City of Carson postal address is used by it, as shown on the CSUDH page. Ucla90024 ( talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The words may be Spanish but no one speaking English cares about that. Will you next put the Native American pronunciation by Manhattan?  :) Ykral ( talk) 12:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Angel is "el ángel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.231.97 ( talk) 08:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Other California city entries (e.g. smaller cities in Orange County) include either political party affiliation percentages, General Election results or at least a political overview of the city itself. Where is the relevant political data for LA?

˜˜˜˜Jackson Bliss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonbliss ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey the full name of L.A. is "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula" do anyone wants that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.148.153 ( talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The first town formed on the location had that name, but it is not the current name. the current name is "City of Los Angeles". The "El pueblo" name is no more the full name of L.A. than "New Amsterdam" is the real name of New York City.   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I doubt Los Angeles translates to "Valley of smoke", as the Enviromental Issues section states. Someone should remove or update this to link to a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.190.51 ( talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what that is supposed to say is that the native Tongva Chumash name for the place was translated that way. This was due to the many villages with cooking fires, if I recall correctly.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Editsemiprotected}} Can you please add this information. Los Angeles's full name is "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula" --and can be abbreviated to 3.63% of its size: L.A. Source http://www.rateitall.com/i-726711-los-angeless-full-name-is-el-pueblo-de-nuestra-senora-la-reina-de-los-angeles-de-porciuncula-and-can-be-abbreviated-to-363-of-its-size-la.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long_place_names -- Japanchildren ( talk) 03:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. The city charter says the name is "City of Los Angeles".   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial urban myth. See also Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 1 Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 2 Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 3 Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 4 Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 5. This topic comes up on this page more than any other, I believe.  Will Beback  talk  05:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Woman's Pro Soccer team, the Los Angeles Sol, who play in the Home Depot Center in Carson, should be mentioned under sports for Los Angeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rforb001 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks a complete list of the Neighborhood Councils (you may see one in L.A. Department of Neighborhood Empowerment's web site: http://done.lacity.org/ncdatabase/nc_database_public/), and the article List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles is not helpful, being focused more on the communities rather than on the Councils, that are L.A. City's main administrative divisions. A list of them should be added, IMHO, precisely here. 79.30.241.106 ( talk) 10:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello can you please update this article of Los Angeles? Please remove some of those old pics of LA's skyline snd add new ones with it's skyline in 2009. Also put in more pics and talk more about Hollywood and make the article appealing. Other cities articles are constructed beter than LA's and they have more pictures and information about that city. Why is LA lagging in this department? So please UPDATE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.197.128 ( talk) 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

jerodam12 09/03/09 3:46 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.197.128 ( talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring this issue up again my last post wasn't signed right. Can you please update this article of Los Angeles? Please remove some of those old pics of LA's skyline snd add new ones with it's skyline in 2009. Also put in more pics and talk more about Hollywood and make the article appealing. Other cities articles are constructed beter than LA's and they have more pictures and information about that city. Why is LA lagging in this department? So please UPDATE!!

Also can you add a section in this article talking about LA's beaches, and some urban parks (e.g. Griffith park and observatory, MacArthur park, Echo Park) and please add a section showing Beverly Hills and Bel Air, and showing diffrent famous roads in LA like Melorse Ave, Sunset Strip, Willshire, etc. Also please show a section with LA culture and museums and neighborhoods which could show... Museums: The Getty, LACMA, MOCA. Diverse neighborhoods: Koreatown, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Little Ethiopia, filipino town, etc. Also other cultured events like parades: the little Tokyo parade and chinatown parades, rose bowl parade, Hollywood parade, etc And please display these sections with pictures. Than you and please consider adding these sections. Every other city has a long page show casing their city's amenities so why can't LA's article do the same thing? Please add these sections it would beef the LA section article up. This article needs to be aesthetically addressed, and given the proper fairness every other city and their article gets, thank you. Jerodam12 ( talk) 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ok thiss so starnge i cant find the ecosystem nd it complicating bcuz its due this friday nd im so behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.85.129.50 ( talk) 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw these old photos & was wondering if you want to add them here: http://thechive.com/2009/02/los-angeles-before-sigalert-31-photos/ ? Stars4change ( talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Following the Spanish pronunciation for the IPA, Los Angeles would be spelled [lo̞s 'ãɴˈxe̞le̞s].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_phonology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_phonology#Phonetic_notes

Can anyone change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.44.56 ( talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it may be appropriate to create a "Landmarks of Los Angeles" article to take the place of the list we currently have. ~ Butros ( Talk) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently all that is listed are the USPS offices. Should this be expanded to include local FBI and immigration offices? ~ Butros ( Talk) 08:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles County, California| {{edit semi protected}} There definitely needs to be a section about the LA River- this page doesn't even mention the word "river!" http://folar.org/

• The city was named for it! El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora, Reina de Los Angeles del Rio Porciuncula (or something similar) AThousandYoung ( talk) 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not quite. The LA River and the city were named for a church beside a different river: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula (The Village of Our Lady, the Queen of the Angels of the river of Porziuncola) See Porziuncola.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As a native of Los Angeles, I hate the word "Angelino". I would NEVER call myself that. I find it obnoxious. AThousandYoung ( talk) 20:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear that residents of San Francisco hate to hear their city called "Frisco". But we're just here to report what's found in reliable sources, not give our own opinions. I haven't heard any other short-hand terms to refer to residents of L.A.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Highest average high for LA is 76.6 F? How can this possibly be true???

Wilsonbond ( talk) 05:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the average high apperently, I will do research. House1090 ( talk) 05:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Often, the official weather figures are measured at a city's airport. In the case of L.A., that may mean a high of 10 or 15 degrees lower than downtown, and 15 to 20 degrees lower than the SF Valley. Unfortunately, the source doesn't specificy where they are measuring. [2]   Will Beback  talk  05:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is short for "La Ciudad de la Reina de los Angeles." That means "The City of the Queen of the Angels." Therefore, its nickname "the city of angels" is wrong. Not many people seem to know that. 75.135.76.200 ( talk) 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a nickname. How can it be right or wrong? Just a name that someone came up with. Also if it is the city of the Queen of the angels, which is most presumably an angel, wouldn't it be correct? ;). SoCal L.A. ( talk) 04:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the official name of the city is "City of Los Angeles". Centuries ago, when a small town was founded on the site, its name was El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula. That formal name was not applied the city when it incorporated. A nickname need not be directly related to a name. "New York" does not mean "Big Apple" in Dutch, for example.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

93.172.116.251 ( talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It turns out the Manchester is a "friendship city" rather than a sister city. While researching that I found that London has the same status, so we're now up-to-date with these relationships. For the moment, at least.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. I went to Sister Cities of Los Angeles, which says there are 25 sister cities. However their list contains 26 entries. The extra city being Łódź, Poland. Perhaps that's a new one since our article on that city doesn't mention L.A. either. I've written to the person in charge and asked about the discrepancy.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs permanent semi-protection. I note, for example, that for almost two years there has been no mention of the city's legendary traffic jams since this article has been heavily vandalized. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's missing due to vandalism, but maybe you can find the instance. See Transportation in Los Angeles#Rush hour. Every city has traffic jams.   Will Beback  talk  18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Los Angeles City is a City, not a County seat. City of Los Angeles is within the County of Los Angeles, but County of Los Angeles is not in the City of Los Angeles. They are separate governmental, administrative bodies. Only one such combined body for both a city and county in California is San Francisco. Bband11th ( talk) 15:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Look at Wikipedia's own article on county seat, and here are some external sources: [3] [4] [5]. Think of it this way: the county seat is the "capital city" of a county. Canada isn't the capital of Canada, Ottawa is. Likewise, LA County isn't the county seat of LA County, Los Angeles is. -- TorriTorri^{( Talk to me!)} 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• You are wrong. County seat is " a term for an administrative center". The center can be located any place. It just happens when the L.A. County was set up, it was located in Los Angeles City. Many of the County agency headquarters are located outside the city of Los Angeles City limit, such as Dept. of Public Works, Fire Dept., Sheriff Dept., etc. The County seat article states "Counties administer state or provincial law at the local level as part of the decentralization of state/provincial authority. In many U.S. states, state government is further decentralized by dividing counties into townships, to provide local government services to residents of the county who do not live in incorporated cities or towns." It serves no purpose to call City of Los Angeles the county seat of Los Angeles County. City of Los Angeles is incorporated city and has its own government. And Counties have their own government and agencies, with the exception of San Francisco which is The state of California has one consolidated city-county, San Francisco. The city's board of supervisors govern both aspects, and there is both a city police department and a county sheriff, the latter mostly responsible for operating the county jail. Bband11th ( talk) 20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The National Association of Counties recognizes the concept of "county seat" and identifies L.A. city as the seat of L.A. Co. [6]   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bband, Wikipedia policy says that one may not cite Wikipedia artices as a source for other Wikipedia articles, which is why I also provided external links. And if the links provided by Will and I are not acceptable, here's a quote from the official LA County website: " Soon thereafter Los Angeles, which had been designated as the official “seat” of County government, was incorporated as a city." -- TorriTorri^{( Talk to me!)} 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles for New York City, Chicago, Phoenix, and Philadelphia state they are the first, the third, the fifth, and the sixth most POPULOUS cities, respectively, in the United States; but the articles for Los Angeles and Houston state they are the second, and fourth LARGEST, respectively? It seems safe to assume that the word "populous" was used so there would be no confusion in the cities rank of their population vs the rank of their land area. New York City is not the nation's largest city in land area, and Chicago is not the third largest in land area, ect. They do, however, hold those ranks population-wise as their articles state. Therefore, it seems the Los Angeles and Houston articles should state they are the second, and fourth most "populous" cities, respectively; not second and fourth "largest" if the intent was to not allow this confusion. After all, the nation's largest city is Anchorage; but not its most populous. If it were me, I would prefer to use the word largest when referring to population, but they does not seem to be the way most of the cities articles read. Therefore, the Los Angeles and Houston articles should be changed to "populous' in the opening remarks to keep it consistent. Or at the very least, just use "largest" for all the other cities articles to keep it consistent with Los Angeles' and Houston's articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 ( talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is ranked an Alpha World City (-) according to these charts: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008c.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html. Please update the Los Angeles main page in the "Economy" section of this article (to indicate that LA is an Alpha World City). This information should also be added to the introduction of the article to indicate that LA is an Alpha World City - simply saying it is a "world center" doesn't really indicate the stature of LA, especially in relation to American peers NYC and Chicago, which both have their Alpha status mentioned in the introduction to their Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.44 ( talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The previous montage was just replaced by a new one created by User:The Emirr. Does anyone think this is an improvement? Personally, I think the original one is much better. -- Jleon ( talk) 03:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Both are good. This has an interesting look because of edges of the photos. But do we need to repeat the Hollywood Blvd. photo? Bband11th ( talk) 04:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jleon. The old one, File:New LA Infobox Pic Montage 5.jpg, look better to me. I'll revert the change.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe that anybody did not mention any skateboarders in this article. I think they are basicly over populating the Los angeles area. They're are more pro skateboarders than movie stars in Los Angeles.

Are skateboarders entertainers or athletes? If there are skateboarders from Los Angeles who are notable (that is, they have a biography on Wikipedia) then we can add them to List of people from Los Angeles. It might be worth mentioning, in either the culture or sports section, that Los Angeles has been a significant center for skateboarding.   Will Beback  talk  16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Consider altering Los Angeles from the currently listed population number to the newly released california department of finance number (4.1 million):

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/2009-10/documents/E-1_2010-Press_Release.pdf

Djm19 ( talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the talk page archives regarding this, particularly:

• /Archive 4#2000 census
• /Archive 4#Population estimates
• /Archive 4#Estimates again
• /Archive 5#Current population of Los Angeles.

We should only be using the US census statistics. -- œ ^™ 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP#United_States_of_America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.143.221 ( talk) 06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone incorporate the more relevant metric of Los Angeles having the second highest GDP in America, rather than relying on the arbitrary Forbes ranking of the city's economic power? To boot, it can also be mentioned that in terms of global GDP by metro area, Los Angeles only trails New York (2.) and Toyko (1.).

With regards to the above edit request...

Note: Official Census 2000 population numbers and demographics for Los Angeles, including 2008 estimates, can be found at the following links:

• http://cityplanning.lacity.org/DRU/C2K/C2KFrame.cfm?geo=Cw&loc=LA_&sgo=ap&rpt=Gnl&yrx=dummy
• http://cityplanning.lacity.org/DRU/Locl/LocPfl.cfm?&geo=Cw&loc=LA_&yrx=Y08

Until the 2010 census is complete, I suggest we stick to the Census 2000 numbers instead of using any various estimates. Once the 2010 numbers are available and released we can update the article then. Is everyone in agreement? -- œ ^™ 18:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with updating the population to the latest estimate which shows it well over 4 million inhabitants. Based on the low returns of Census 2010 envelopes, even the "Official" 2010 Census is at best, an estimate. It is well known that many undocumented residents do not fill, or are afraid to fill census information due to possible perceived persecution. Not counting these inhabitants is almost pretending that they don't exist. College Watch ( talk) 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://yubanet.com/california/California-Added-393-000-In-2009-Population-Tops-38-6-Million.php

I'm for a version of "4 million" based on Census 2010. These are real data for L.A. Subtropical-man ( talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with WP:USCITY guidelines: do not mention non-Census estimates without including Census ones. Actually, I'd be perfectly content to omit the damn California Department of Finance figure altogether since the California Department of Finance estimates aren't used in the other 258 American cities.-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article says: Los Angeles has a Mediterranean climate or Dry-Summer Subtropical (Köppen climate classification Csb on the coast, Csa inland), and receives just enough annual precipitation to avoid Köppen's BSh (warm semi-arid climate) classification. But according to Köppen climate classification the threshold for group B climates is 20 x 17.2 + 0 = 344 mm and the annual precipitation in Los Angeles is 305 mm (below the limit). The climate should be B* or I'm not calculating correctly? -- Nk ( talk) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"The most prevalent botanical environment is coastal sage scrub, which covers the hillsides in combustible chaparral." This is misleading, as Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral are two distinct environments, both found in Los Angeles. Also, Chaparral has alot more to offer than combustibility... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.235.94 ( talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What accounted for the rapid growth in population between 1910 and 1930? The great depression didn't occur until 1929 so that wouldn't have made a huge difference--I would expect. The growth between 1930 and 1940 was much smaller percentage-wise (which might seem surprising since one might predict the Dust Bowl effect would have been greater during the Depression years...)-- 达伟 ( talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

General growth + (at times) forced annexations of suburbs and increased water availability, according to History of Los Angeles. It seems that, in general, the early 20th century was the first time Americans started moving to places based mostly on the climate of those locations, as opposed to other factors. From the History of LA article, it sounds like the annexations were most of the reason behind the growth in this particular case. Alexius Horatius 08:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A new census release has estimated Los Angeles to have over 50% Latino population, the first time since 1860 for the city's Latino population to outnumber the other ethnic groups. This was long predicted since the 1920's, but I recall a National Geographic magazine article of Los Angeles (January 1979) wrote comments to sure be deemed "un-PC or xenophobic" about Los Angeles (the city, county or area? non-specified) will develop a Hispanic majority or have mostly Spanish surnamed people (the only major city in the mainland US except Puerto Rico) before the year 2000 and being compared to "Another Quebec, the province of Canada where today French is the official language". I thought the title goes to the border town of El Paso, Texas with over 3/4 of the city and 2/3 of the county are Latino. I also read the magazine's interview with then L.A. city councilman Alberto Juarez predicted at least three (turns out to be five) Spanish-speaking council members and a mayor of Hispanic origin (also came true) will head Los Angeles in the first decade of the 21st century was correct. + 71.102.3.86 ( talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009

Where's a source for this particular claim. According to the latest ACS report from the U.S. Census, the Latino population is still at 49%. In addition, with cities with populations of million plus, San Antonio in Texas has more percentage of Latinos than Los Angeles. The claim, however, may be true with the release of the 2010 census figures. -- Moreau36 ( talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong one Census

Hi, You see on the top of pages say "3,833,995" in July 1, 2009 is made mistake because 2008 is old. Now it is 3,831,868 in 2009. You see U.S. Census Estimate 2009, 2000 and 1990 You can edit it. Thank you. Ross Degenstein ( Talk) -- 208.107.123.63 ( talk) 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"The summer's season lasts nearly all year round, although during the period from December to April temperatures are alternately - between a fifty several and seventy several degrees Fahrenheit (a dozen or so and twenty-some degrees Celsius) during the day."

This sentence is extremely awkward. Is this typical phrasing in American dialect? I'd suggest something like "The summer season lasts nearly all year round. Between December and April, however, temperatures can alternate between fifty-five and seventy-five degrees Fahrenheit during the day." 99.253.195.150 ( talk) 10:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard or read that usage before. Your proposed change looks much better.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. Although I agree that the proposed text reads better, the weatherbase reference doesn't support it (not to say it's wrong, just that the data isn't there). The offending sentences don't contribute a lot, so I've deleted them. Daily variation does seem interesting - it often surprises non-natives - but more research is required to find cite-able information. Remember that the difference between average high and average low is not necessarily the same as the average difference between high and low. Note also that the daily swing in temperature is not particularly seasonal. Jordan Brown ( talk) 15:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, sometimes I can't do math, at least not by intuition. SUM(high[i] - low[i])/n is indeed equal to SUM(high[i])/n - SUM(low[i])/n. Distributivity and all that. Sigh. Added in a sentence about daily swings, using the NOAA data. Jordan Brown ( talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• East Los Angeles College (ELAC) is not located within limits of the City of Los Angeles. The district headquarters are located in the City. Bband11th ( talk) 03:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Claremont Colleges are not in the City of Los Angeles, but one particularly persistent user is insisting on putting them there. Those distinguished institutions are in fact in Claremont, which is a separate city. I'm somewhat baffled by this insistence; perhaps someone else can attempt to explain. Antandrus (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not only not in City of Los Angeles, but very far from the City of L.A. It is located in the northeast corner of the County of Los Angeles. Bband11th ( talk) 06:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with your comments on his talk page, and slapped him with some UW's . If he makes one more irresponsible edit, he's off to AIV. Purple backpack89 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Under History, there is a paragraph:

During the remaining decades of the 20th century, the city was plagued by increasing gang warfare, drug trades, and police corruption. Racial tensions erupted again in 1992 with the Rodney King controversy and the large-scale riots that followed the acquittal of his police attackers. In 1994, the 6.7 Northridge earthquake shook the city, causing $12.5 billion in damage and 72 deaths.[28]

"police corrupiton" should be deleted becuase:

1. There is no proof that the city was "plagued" with police corruption.
2. If it was true, it needs to be cited.
3. The only cite (# 28) has to do with an earthquake, not the city being "plagued" with police corruption.

70.134.67.132 ( talk) 16:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See Rampart scandal.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, if its true it needs to be cited. Only five officers were terminated. That is not a "plague." It needs to be removed or re-worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.67.132 ( talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: I've added a {{ dubious}} there, when consensus is achieved here, someone will change it, or request an edit again. 930913( Congratulate) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Los_Angeles#Demographics:

• White: 49.5% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 29.4%) - so, 49.5% - 29.4% = 20.1% Hispanic

below write:

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 48.4%

and be-eee-low: Hispanics and Latinos make up 48.4% of Los Angeles' population. According to the survey, there were 1,815,005 Hispanics and Latinos residing in Los Angeles. The four main Hispanic/Latino groups were the following:

• • Mexican: 33.4% (1,253,410)
  • Puerto Rican: 0.4% (14,646)
  • Cuban: 0.4% (13,390)
  • Other Hispanic or Latino (Colombian, Panamanian, Uruguayan, etc.): 14.2% (533,539)

Do these figures are accurate? Are there sources? Subtropical-man ( talk) 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This link is provided as a reliable source per U.S. Census Bureau. -- Moreau36-- Discuss 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This arbitrary and uncited line in the Geography section is unnecessary and could be cleaned up, there are other examples of major US cities with mountain ranges separating portions of the city limits (Phoenix, El Paso). Should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.34.101 ( talk) 15:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} There should be no period after "the valley of smoke". So Say We All ( talk) 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

LAX min. temp.

Minimum temperature at LAX downtown was 23F on 9-1-1937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.63.99 ( talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please add this:

On 03/01/2006 Our Lady made this prophecy: "The famous Los Angeles will mourn the death of their children." (See Apelos Urgentes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.117.72.239 ( talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I would like to add my book (below) to the Further Reading section, but I can't because it is semi-protected. How can I do it?

• López-Calvo, Ignacio. Latino Los Angeles in Film and Fiction: The Cultural Production of Social Anxiety. University of Arizona Press, 2011. ISBN  0816529264 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.36.159 ( talk) 06:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. By its title, that book looks quite specialized and would not be a logical addition to this very general article. However, Wikipedia is vast and deep, and there are other articles where that might be a valuable addition. For example, Arts and culture of Los Angeles, List of films set in Los Angeles, History of Mexican Americans, Chicano films, etc. But "Further Reading" entries are little more than advertisements or bibliography filler. If you really like to help how about adding material using your already researched sources? Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you need more help.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Text from intro

Los Angeles ... is the second most populous city in the United States, ^[1] the most populous city in the state of California and the western United States, with a population of 3.83 million ^[2] within its administrative limits on a land area of 498.3 square miles (1,290.6 km²). The urban area of Los Angeles extends beyond the administrative city limits with a population of over 14.8 million and it is the 14th largest urban area in the world, affording it megacity status. ^[3] The Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is home to nearly 12.9 million residents ^[4] while the broader Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside combined statistical area (CSA) contains nearly 17.8 million people. Los Angeles is also the seat of Los Angeles County, the most populated and one of the most multicultural counties ^[5] in the United States.

In 2010 the London based consultant firm Knight Frank LLP, together with Citibank, published The Wealth Report 2010, which ranked Los Angeles the 5th most powerful and influential city in the world, behind only New York City in the United States. The Wealth Report, which includes the World City Survey, assesses four parameters — economic activity, political power, knowledge and influence and quality of life. ^[6] The Los Angeles combined statistical area (CSA) has a gross metropolitan product (GMP) of $831 billion (as of 2008), making it the third largest economic center in the world, after the Greater Tokyo Area and the New York metropolitan area. ^{[7] [8] [9]}

Metro population discussion

Someone's changed it to 15 million, but the article, source and other pages give the more common and accurate number of 12 million. I can't fix it because it's protected so, just letting people know.

Red Hair Bow ( talk) 08:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. You're right that the metro population is 12 million, but the urban area population is 15 million. Or so it says at List of urban areas by population. I've copied the lengthy footnote here.

I think the intro is getting superlative heavy, so I'm not endorsing the inclusion of this material by improving it. Maybe we can edit the rankings down a bit. Some of the material isn't in the text of the article which is another sign of work to be done.

Red Hair Bow, you'll be able to fix it four days after your sign-up so feel free to come back or make other suggestions in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I try to explain: there are two categories: administrative/statistical and urbanization.

Los Angeles area (administratively/statistical) is divided into:

• Los Angeles metropolitan statistical area (MSA) - 12.9 million
• Los Angeles combined statistical area (CSA) - 17.8 million

Los Angeles area (urbanization) is divided into:

• Los Angeles urban area - 14.8 million
• Los Angeles metropolitan area - 15.3 million

Subtropical-man ( talk) 20:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, there are many ways of defining the greater L.A. urbanization. Can you suggest a way of mentioning the most important couple of ones in the intro, and moving the rest to the demographics section?   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted the population and economy material from the intro. It seems too detailed, with too many facts, too many different measures of population. Perhaps just the city population and the largest or most important of the urban area populations? There's also too much on the "Wealth Report". Maybe we could just say something like, "it has been ranked as the fifth most important city economically". That'd be more readable. The details can go in the text of the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean the CSA (17.8 million)...that includes LA, OC, and the Inland Empire; which I feel is the proper definition of the LA metro area. I also agree with your way to summarize the economy thing Purple backpack89 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it from the intro, along with that minor detail of the founding name of the city.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is that now? I know it's a very long name, but it has to be there someplace Purple backpack89 03:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in the history section.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LAX is no longer the fifth busiest, it should say sixth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.36.123 ( talk) 11:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Much slower growth than expected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.111.94 ( talk) 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Census 2010 Population > 4,000,000

I'm not sure why there are contributors animate on making sure Los Angeles doesn't appear to have more than 4 million people. As a Los Angeles resident, the new city limit signs appearing are saying that the population is well over 4 million, and 5 years ago, those signs read 3,957,875. Every decade since the 1920s, the city has grown considerably without any dip in population; 2010 being no exception. Los Angeles has the highest immigrant and non-resident population in the U.S, second only to New York City. There could foreseeably be 4 1/2 million when accounting for those folks. Being a rapidly growing sun-belt region, and a city that continues to sprawl to nearly 500 square miles, I don't logically see how the population stagnated the last decade. Even if there are official tabulations under the 4 million mark, there is no way to be sure of the exact count. Many people refuse to participate or afraid that participation could cause deportation. Intelligent estimates should be considered.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2010/04/california_coming_up_on_3.php College Watch ( talk) 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Census numbers should be use, as that is the standard on Wikipedia. However statements from reliable sources giving a higher number should be mentioned in the text where appropriate nonetheless. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

City limit signs (or guesses based on having a lot of immigrants) aren't reliable sources, anyway they're less reliable than a census. It is in the city's interest to pad their population stats anyway, as its better to be the mayor of a growing city than one that isn't growing as fast. We should use the same standard as every other city in the US, which is the census. Alexius Horatius 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay so maybe a compromise, showing the official 2010 census followed by a 4 Million+ estimate? College Watch ( talk) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The 4 million number should not be placed in the infobox, rather a note should be made of it. Or it should be inserted as prose into the Demographics section. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think it looked better with the borders? I've always thought that montages look a bit off without them, but there seems to be a few where people have edited out (or never put in) any borders. I was going to revert, but thought I'd ask for thoughts here first. Altormainstream ( talk) 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the article referenced indicates, California as a whole produced one-quarter of the world's oil in 1923, not just Los Angeles. The sentence should read: Oil was discovered in 1892, and by 1923, the discoveries had helped California become the country's largest oil producer, accounting for about one-quarter of the world's petroleum output. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petefrance ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch and good solution. I'll go ahead and make the edit on your behalf. BTW, I've ordered one of the books cited in the source, in case it offers more specificity.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a native and I've always heard residents referred to as "Los Angelenos". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• What, seriously? I'm also a native (well, technically not quite, I suppose, but I've lived in L.A. for more than twenty years), and while I can't say for sure I've never heard residents referred to as "Los Angelenos", I can definitely say that "Angelenos" is by far the more common term. For what it's worth, Google backs that up; "Los Angelenos" gets 155,000 results, as opposed to over two million results for "Angelenos" (or slightly less than two million, if you exclude the hits that include "Los Angelenos"). Of course, what really matters is reliable sources, not Google hits or either of our personal experiences; I'm just saying that even your personal experience with hearing "Los Angelenos" doesn't seem to jibe with mine or with what's on the web. ---- Smeazel ( talk) 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard both, but mostly "Angelenos" without the Los. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a native Californian, born in SoCal and lived in NorCal after college, and I've only heard Angelenos, not Los Angelenos. Binksternet ( talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The current dispute of Los Angeles having a Little Italy can easily be resolved with a source. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 20:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, 100%. I want the source in part, because I would like to go visit Little Italy in LA personally. I always do so when in San Francisco or San Diego. The problem is, I've just never heard of it. I know San Pedro used to be a "Little Italy" of sorts, and there were others. Unfortunately, we are talking about the past, and there is not current equivalent to North Beach in Los Angeles, or even the greater metropolitan area. The Scythian 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming it used to exist. Similar to how San Diego used to have Chinatown but no longer does. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a "used to" thing. Take a look: here, here and here - only vestiges remain of what was never a giant community to begin with. Dohn joe ( talk) 22:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know there were in the past several Little Italy's. A quick Google search brings up a number of historical articles on them [7]. For instance, where I live in Long Beach, there are several residual markets from the previously large and local Italian-American population, as well as Armenian, Greek and Assyrian. There is even a official "Greek-Latino" quarter in Los Angeles, near downtown, that represents the previous ethnic enclave, and the new ethnic groups that have move in. Just no Little Italy. As for San Diego, that was interesting. I never knew there was a Chinatown that came and went. Interesting. The Scythian 22:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Chinatown was where Horton Plaza and the Gaslamp Quarter are now. Evidently Little Italy does not exist in L.A.. all my sources point to historical articles, as you mentioned. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely wish there was one. I would go check it out immediately. Unfortunately, I am now involved in a edit war over this, simply becuase the other editor has no wish in discussing it, or even commenting on this talk page. The Scythian 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

If the existence of Little Italy is disputed, it all depends on sources. This says "there is no publicly-identified "Little Italy" in Los Angeles" which is a pretty firm answer - so the article should not claim that there's a Little Italy, unless of course somebody finds a stronger source elsewhere which claims the opposite - it would have to be quite impressively sourced to outweigh http://www.italianlosangeles.org. bobrayner ( talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)— bobrayner ( talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there currently a Little Italy in Los Angeles? No (so Italian LA is correct). Did there used to be? Yes. It used to be that Lincoln Heights and the current Chinatown had large Italian populations. This was before Union Station was built on the site of old Chinatown. After Union Station was built, Little Italy became the current Chinatown. Relics of this are Nightengale Middle School (remember, the Italians claim her) in Lincoln Heights. Essentially piggybacking onto Dohn Joe. If there is no mention of Old Chinatown and Little Italy in the articles on Chinatown and Lincoln Heights, there ought to be Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a link to its page for "Berlin, Germany" under "Sister cities". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Sister_cities ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin

91.7.194.34 ( talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 ( talk) 02:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:LAColiseumStatues.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do most of the sikhism live in the LA area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 ( talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

-- 98.210.96.51 ( talk) 23:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)8/25/2011 "The racial makeup of Los Angeles was 1,888,158 (49.8%) White, 365,118 (9.6%) African American, 28,215 (0.7%) Native American, 426,959 (11.3%) Asian, 5,577 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 902,959 (23.8%) from other races, and 175,635 (4.6%) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 1,838,822 persons (48.5%)."

Percentage total = 148.4% Percentage total without Hispanics and Latinos of any race = 99.9%

Presentation of population information very unclear.

• how is this unclear? hispanic/latino is a separate category from race, so you add up all the people from each race, you get 100% with rounding error, and some of the people of some of the races are, besides being of that race, are also hispanic/latino. if you understand it but think it's not well expressed, why not fix it? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The LAPD source states 250 gangs but the California Central Disctrict Drug Threat Assessment talks about at least 1350. Which one is right ? see bottom page last paragraph of this link: http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs0/668/overview.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.217.33 ( talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to Los Angeles being a sanctuary city and having many international visitors and temporary residents, I feel that the “official population” doesn’t truly reflect the actual one. There is also a large segment of the population on work Visas and questionable immigration status in which they would not voluntarily opt to be counted in the census. These factors are significant and doesn’t seem to be reflected in the article

College Watch ( talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

i think that this would be excellent if you can find sources. i'm not sure where one would look for this kind of thing. i do know that the census tries to count all residents regardless of their status, but this wouldn't include some of the other segments of the population you mention. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 19:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The City is under federal investigation for alleged economic crimes involving its dealings with certain unions, trade groups, and businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.214.34 ( talk) 23:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the sentence "It is the only major city in the United States bisected by a mountain range." is uncited, and arguably untrue (El Paso, for example, is more intensely bisected than LA). I can't edit, but someone who can should remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.180.92 ( talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense to the citizens of El Paso, but that city is considerably smaller than Los Angeles, about 1/6 as large in population. OTOH, El Paso is still the 19th largest city in the nation, so it's not exactly a minor city either. Maybe " metropolis" would be a better term than "major city", as that would clearly exclude El Paso.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The current "prior to 2010" section comprises the old demographic info, now updated in the "2010" section. It's just old statistics. I think we can get rid of almost all of it. It's not a comprehensive assessment of demographic trends, it's just a lengthy summary of the 2000 census. History is important, but this is a matter of overlaying statistics upon statistics. I've removed it.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

the City of Alhambra had a large Italian American population back in the 70's and early 80's. Valley Boulevard had a large number of Italian American owned business. With the influx of Asians they moved south toward San Clemente. Anthony Venti became a prominent businessman in Alhambra and subsequently owned properties. He used to have a old barbershop on Valley boulevard called "Venti's". There was also old Garfono's pizza on valley boulevard west of the 710, near CSULA. It was an Italian owned restaurant until it was sold to the current Korean owner.

Alhambra doesn't even border the city of Los Angeles. This material would be more appropriate in either the Alhambra, California or San Gabriel Valley articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alhambra does border Los Angeles--from the 10 up along 710 and Winchester and Huntington up to Kendall/Alhambra. If you're talking about Valley west of 710, then that is Los Angeles. HkCaGu ( talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

well who'd have guessed? alhambra does indeed border los angeles: [8]. i'm not sure what to do with the info, if anything. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the reference to specific gangs it serves as an advertisement for them. k thx bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.152.211 ( talk) 12:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

this regards this line in the infobox:

nickname = L.A., the City of Angels, Angeltown, the Entertainment Capital of the World, La-La Land

where "la-la land" is sourced to this: 'La-La Land,' now the dictionary definition of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2011

three things: (a) it looks like the reference is supposed to support all the nicknames, when in fact it only supports la-la land. not that "city of angels" or "l.a" need support, but "angeltown" does. i've never heard it in my life. finally (c) i suppose that "the entertainment capital of the world" is defensible, but it's not really a nickname, as no one would ever actually say it. it's more like a slogan or something. i imagine that calling it a "nickname" could be defended by the fact that "sobriquet" is often touted as a synonym for "nickname" and this is possibly a sobriquet, but i think that's stretching it.

proposal: how about if we drop angeltown and the entertainment capital of the world, leave in la-la land sourced to the LAT thing, and just suck it up that it looks like the ref is supporting all of them, since the first two are moon-is-round, so it would read (with munged ref tags for clarity on talk page):

nickname = L.A., the City of Angels, La-La Land <:ref> "'La-La Land,' now the dictionary definition of Los Angeles". Los Angeles Times. 25 March 2011. Retrieved 28 September 2011.<:/ref>

is this too much detail? one hopes that it won't be necessary for every single source.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 13:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The first assertions and sources are the most prominent, so it's worth spending some time getting them right. I agree that "entertainment capital" is a sobriquet rather than a nickname, and should be removed from that slot. I don't recall hearing "Angeltown" before but I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and found numerous uses in the L.A. Times from the 1990s and before. Maybe it's fallen out of fashion. In 1959 a group wrote an anthem for the city, "Angeltown", which was apparently forgotten soon after. Jack Smith did a column on nicknames for Los Angeles in 1989. He wrote: "Angeltown is often seen in print, especially in newspaper columns. I believe it's one of [Herb] Caen's favorites. But it is self-conscious and a bit precious. I have never heard anyone use it casually at dinner or in a bar." He also mentions "the Big Orange", "La La Land", and another favorite of Caen's: "Smogville". The rest of the nicknames he lists as being passing vogues, such as "Nowhere City", "the Capital of Kitsch", "Lotus Land", "The Fake Tomato Factory, "Cuckooland", "Dodgertown", "Double Dubuque", "Forty Suburbs in Search of a City", and "Moronia", which was coined by HL Mencken. So, I'd recommend keeping "Angeltown" - we can use the Smith column for the reference.

I also checked on "the Big Orange", but it does not appear to get much use.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

christ, are we reduced to letting herb caen define los angeles? just kidding, of course, especially because we'd be citing jack smith. i agree with your proposal for this, and will leave the edit to you at your discretion, pending whatever level of response you're comfortable with, since you have the source.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that use "Angeltown". What makes the Smith column especially useful is that it actually discusses it. And, FWIW, "Angeltown" predates Caen's popularity, so he can't be blamed for it.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

here is what we have: Los Angeles (Listeni/lɒs ˈændʒələs/ loss-an-jə-ləs;[3] Spanish: [los ˈaŋxeles], English: "The Angels"),

the footnote leads to the UK pronounciation. I would prefer that we move the UK pronounciation up into the article, drop the footnote, and also drop the English: "The Angels" part, or move it somewhere else, since it seems trivial and irrelevant to pronounciation. Thus I'm proposing that we have:

Los Angeles ( /lɒs ˈændʒələs/ ^ⓘ Spanish: [los ˈaŋxeles] loss-AN-jə-ləs UK: /lɒs ˈændʒəliːz/ loss-AN-jə-leez)

good god, forgot to sign!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the UK pronunciation that important? We don't have a source for it. I agree that "The Angels" is best left off.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

i am absolutely indifferent to the uk pronounciation. maybe will wait till tomorrow, see if anyone else cares, and then dump it. i'll get rid of "the angels" right now.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed right after this edit that i'd inadvertently switched from the core statistical area to the metropolitan statistical area. i didn't notice the difference at first, since Table of United States Core Based Statistical Areas lists them in the same line. the MSA redirects here: Los Angeles metropolitan area, while the CSA redirects here: Greater Los Angeles Area. opinions? should we work both in there? probably since it's the lead, only one is enough, but which should it be? i have no opinion, and the switch was accidental, but not so consequential that i feel moved to change it back unless people feel that i ought to. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

oh, p.s.: my main purpose in redoing it was to eliminate the three inlines at the end of the sentence, and to eliminate the citation to the wikipedia article altogether (as we know, wp is not a reliable source), so if anyone wants to change it around, there's that. the other issue was that the census source that the CSA population was cited to did not actually support the 17+ million figure, since it was a table of populations of MSAs. It shouldn't be hard to find a source for the CSA population, though, if that's what we want.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been endless discussions of these issues spread across several talk pages. I have no opinions on the matter, but other people do. I think we should think of the reader and do what seems best, but that's just a platitude.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)