Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

between cabrillo and crespi+de portola

this sentence here:

The next contact would not come until 227 years later, when Gaspar de Portolà, along with Franciscan missionary Juan Crespí, reached the present site of Los Angeles on August 2, 1769. Crespí noted that the site had the potential to be developed into a large settlement.<:ref>"Father Crespi in Los Angeles". Los Angeles: Past, Present and Future. University of Southern California. Retrieved September 29, 2011.</ref>

worries me slightly. the source supports everything in the sentence except the statement that crespi and de portola represent the next contact after cabrillo. i will look for another source for this part, or maybe someone else already has one? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's common knowledge. ;) I'm wondering whether the history section devotes too much space to the earliest period in L.A.'s history. Compare to San_Francisco#History, which is about 1485 words long, of which 244 words (16%) is devoted to pre-Gold Rush history. This history section is only about 827 words long, of which 444 words (53%) are devoted to about the same period. Cabrillo's vist was relatively unimportant - maybe it could be mentioned more briefly, perhaps something like "While Juan Cabrillo claimed the areas for Spain in 1542, the first European settlement came 227 year later when...." That also gets round having to find a reference for the lack of contact in between. Not that the early years aren't important, but we it's just too detailed compared to the more recent history, which is given little attention.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

it's quite plausible that it does devote too much space to it. especially cabrillo, who basically just sailed by and got a beach named after him later. i like your proposed sentence a lot, actually. it's a nice solution to the sourcing problem too.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

founding and move of san gabriel mission

previously, we had a statement that serra built the mission in 1771, and then a footnote stating that it was moved in 1776 due to a flood, and there was no source. looking into sources, i found that serra actually didn't show up at the mission site until 1772, but that he ordered some of his people there in 1771 to organize things. hence i changed it to say that serra directed the building of the mission. next, of the two sources i looked at in detail, one didn't mention the moving of the mission at all, and the other said that it was moved in 1775 and didn't mention anything about a flash flood. i put that in there, although it's quite plausible that this is too much info about the san gabriel mission for this article anyway, and we could leave it out in order to avoid the issue. it's also relevant that the wp article on the San Gabriel Mission repeats flood story, and sources it to something which I haven't looked at yet. if this were hyperimportant, i'd note the conflicting dates and cite both sources, but that seems like too much detail for this article. please feel free to switch this edit up if you have a better idea of what to do. some of the problem in the sources may be due to confusion between a mission (a bunch of priests located somewhere to convert indians) and the church located at the site of the mission, popularly referred to as a "mission" as well.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

oh, p.s. the source supporting the flood story in the wp article on the mission is only snippet view on gb, and i can't seem to get directly to the page they cite. this one doesn't seem important enough to justify a trip to the library, is why i'm not checking their source.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As Per above, I think we should look for ways for reducing the detail in the "Mission Years" part of the history. The San Gabriel Mission was never in Los Angeles, though it was important for the region. Maybe we can just say something like, "Serra built missions in the area, including San Gabriel Mission".   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

i agree here too. please feel free to rewrite as you see fit. nice work on the further reading section, by the way. i hated the way those subheads looked, but i didn't know that semicolon thing!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - those sub-sections took up too much space in the TOC. I've trimmed a bunch of details from the early history section. While we can probably work more on that section, I think we could also pay attention to making sure the major events of the last 80 years are given sufficient weight. [continued below.]   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

GaWC sources

this is in reference to the following sentence, where i've munged the ref tags so as not to confuse the poor computer:

Nicknamed the City of Angels, Los Angeles is a world center of business, international trade, entertainment, culture, media, fashion, science, technology, and education.<:ref name=GAWC>"The World According to GaWC 2008". Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network, Loughborough University. Retrieved March 3, 2009.</ref><:ref>"Inventory of World Cities". Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Study Group and Network. Retrieved December 1, 2007.</ref>

the problem is that the first page cited lists world cities according to some idiosyncratic and opaque system that the globalization and world cities research network has come up with. it rates la as "alpha minus". what does that mean, we ask? the second page explains a little more fully, kind of dropping the minus and mentioning that "alpha" means "full service world cities". that second page contains a link here: [1] which promises to explain the classification system, and whose abstract claims "This paper reports the construction of an inventory of world cities based upon their level of advanced producer services," and then dives down the rabbit hole.

so it seems to me that sourcing this sentence to any of this material is synthesis at best, and nonsense at worst. i don't especially mind the sentence, but it's hard to see where to find a reasonable source for it. perhaps we could call it moon-is-round material and dump the two sources? or maybe the sources are ok with everyone else? if that's the case, i think at the least we should write an explanatory footnote that tells how to find the information in the three pages. i'd rather just dump the two sources, though. others?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That whole "Alpha City" thing seems contrived to me, but there've been plenty of discussions about it which I've tried to avoid. I'm not attached to it, and maybe it was just a passing rating, like most "livable city". OTOH, it is a convenient shorthand for expressing the city's relative prominence. Maybe we could reduce its promotional sound. It is all of those things, but it's better to show it than to say it.   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

good lord, i can see why you stayed out of it. it makes me want to delete the whole sentence (the discussion does). it seems to me that if the sentence is going to be cited to those sources, it really ought to use the words "alpha minus city", and i would really oppose using the words "alpha minus city" in any context whatsoever. perhaps i will just ask here if anyone cares if we dump the sentence, and also ask that if anyone does oppose dumping the sentence, that they suggest ways in which it could be rewritten so that it actually reflects the content of the sources it's cited to? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern history topics

List

• Harbor fight, Port of Los Angeles
• L.A. Times bombing
  • more on the aqueduct; at least a sentence or two
• Annexations
• 1938 flood
• Frank L. Shaw, the first mayor of a major American city to be recalled from office
  • german exile community and influence on culture, e.g. schoenberg at ucla, probably using this for major source
• WWII defense industry
• Japanese internment
• Zoot Suit riots
  • bohemians in edendale, mostly regarding mattachine society, founding of modern gay rights movement
• arrival of Dodgers/Chavez Ravine
• Freeway construction
• 1960 Democratic National Convention
• Watts Riots
  • Aerospace industry
• RFK assassination
• Manson murders
• growth of Bloods and Crips
• First African American elected mayor of a major Western US city: Tom Bradley
  • California & South Coast Air Quality Management District (SC AQMD) restrictions: smog, cars, incinerators, and industry
• OJ Simpson murder case
• Light rail/subway
• First Latino mayor since statehood: Antonio Villaraigosa
• 2000 Democratic National Convention
  • Runaway production, defense cutbacks
• Charter reform
• Neighborhood councils (detailed in a separate section)

Discussion

Among the topics that I see missing: [moved above] Just some ideas (bit heavy on crime).   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Let's brainstorm it. Add topic above and we can trim down the list later.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

everything on your list ought to be in there, i agree. i thought of a couple other things this morning, but they slipped away before i got to a computer. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1994 FIFA World Cup

• as well as multiple games of the 1994 FIFA World Cup, including the final.

The matches were held in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, not in Los Angeles. I don't think L.A. can take credit for this. I'll remove it unless there's an objection.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

removal seems right to me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

further reading section

i didn't know about the gbooks citation making tool when i redid all these books. i will be using it this weekend to make the citation styles all consistent, and in alphabetical order within subsections, unless anyone prefers some other system. let me know if you do. also, i'd like to dump that one journal article by torin monahan if no one minds. it's interesting, and appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, but i don't think it has the scope and impact of the other books on there. if no objections, at some point i'll get rid of it, but i don't care a whole lot either way. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no attachment to any of it, but I'm those who added the material feel differently. Before doig extensive work on the formatting, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to review the list and see if any entries should be deleted. The guideline is here Wikipedia:Further reading. From a quick glance, it looks to me like everything is reliable and relevant. My only concern would be whether it is balanced and properly limited. Maybe a much longer list at Bibliography of Los Angeles would be more appropriate. However that decision could be made later and any improvements to the formatting could carry over.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1960 anglo population

i would like to remove this sentence:

In 1960, non-Hispanic whites made up 82% of the population of Los Angeles County.<:ref>"Mexico North?". Washington Times. 26 March 2006.</ref>

first of all, it's apropos of nothing at all where it is. i have no objection to the information being included somewhere in the article, but it's absolutely out of context here. second of all, the reference to the washington times is very strange, as the wt article does nothing more than quote a bunch of stuff from encarta, including that sentence verbatim. in fact, one could make the case that the sentence, properly attributed to encarta by the wt article, becomes plagiarism here on wp, where it's not enclosed in quotations and is essentially misattributed. i haven't read thoroughly down to the demographics section, so i'm not sure that this belongs there, and it may be that we want some kind of historical demographics paragraph or even subsection, but i see no reason to pick 1960 at random and state the number of non-hispanic whites. if we're going to contextualize it, the wt article wouldn't be a bad starting place for that. comments? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As it is, it's a non sequitor. If we could say that the Anglo population achieved its highest percentage in 1960 then that might be worthy of note. But since we have a whole demographics section, any interesting demographic details should go there. I'm sure there are better ethnic trend analyses available than an op-ed piece quoting a defunct online encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by JDZeff on October 1, 2011

As it stands, the sentence "Prior to 1995, the Rams called Memorial Coliseum (1946–1979) and the Raiders played their home games at Memorial Coliseum from 1982 to 1994." in the Sports section is incomplete. It needs the word "home" either right before or after the first set of dates. I would have been bold, and tidied it up myself, but the article's locked.JDZeff (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

done. thx for noticing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

the plagues of the city in the remaining decades of the 20th century.

this seems too vague to be sourceable so i took it out, but if anyone can find something to cite it to, or feels that it's prima facie obvious, or just doesn't like me taking it out, feel free to put it back in. it's possible that it can be expanded into a number of individually more sourceable sentences, of course. i'll try to do that after i finish going through the references if no one has done it first, or we can leave it out. be bold if you wanna!

During the remaining decades of the 20th century, the city was plagued by increasing gang warfare, drug activity, and police corruption;

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably true, but it'd be better to give a few more details with sources. I think it could be deleted in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

gentrification woes in history

this regards this sentence:

Gentrification and urban redevelopment have occurred in many parts of the city, most notably Hollywood, Koreatown, Silver Lake, Echo Park and Downtown.<:ref>"Welcome to Gentrification City". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on 11 July 2007. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 1 July 2007 suggested (help)</ref>

i'm not sure what to do with this in the history section. it's not placed in historical context, and the source itself doesn't do much to place it in historical context (at least the parts i could read, problems with the wayback machine). on the other hand, gentrification is a serious issue in l.a., and could quite reasonably be discussed in the article. i guess i don't like it in the history section, because it's an ongoing process, at least since the big bunker hill redevelopment and possibly earlier, and this sentence makes it sound like it's some crisis that just popped up. ideas? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post something about that sentence too. My concern is that it is reporting just one aspect of the ebb-and-flow of neighborhoods. To the extent that gentrification is the opposite of some other process- either ethnic infusion or general downturn in property value - we don't have sources to explain the whole cycle. This topic seems best covered in another section, maybe cityscape, economy or demographics. It's not really a history topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, i deleted it, and maybe we'll put in something elsewhere if there are sources.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

cityscape section: origins of neighborhoods

this:

many of which were incorporated places or communities that were annexed by the city. There are also several independent cities around Los Angeles, but they are popularly grouped with the city of Los Angeles, either due to being completely engulfed as enclaves by Los Angeles, or lying within its immediate vicinity.

is clearly true. nevertheless, it almost seems to me to need a reference. thoughts? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The first clause, about annexations, is easily sourced. The sentence about other cities being grouped with Los Angeles, seems more like an opinion. I think that sentence was truing to address places like West Hollywood and Beverly Hills, but was trimmed down to exclude their names. We have an article titled Greater Los Angeles. Maybe it'd be simper to refer to the article, saying something like, "Greater Los Angeles includes enclaves and nearby communities."   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that text was added in 2005 by an IP editor from Berkeley.[2] He included, as part of L.A., Pasadena and Beverly Hills, which shows the lack of care in the edit.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

berkeley. it all makes sense now. they only have 3 neighborhoods there: not-berkeley-but-oakland, not-oakland-but-berkeley, and not-san-francisco. l.a. is beyond their comprehension. i found a source for annexations and added it, and made change you suggested regarding greater los angeles, with small change. let me know if it's agreeable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

downtown: a landmark of itself

this:

Downtown Los Angeles is quickly becoming a landmark of itself, with development of billion dollar projects such as Wilshire Grand Tower I, rivaling the prominence of places such as Times Square.<:ref name="wg">"Los Angeles set to tie New York: Wilshire Grand will reach height of Empire State". Retrieved April 21, 2011.</ref>

doesn't make much sense to me. perhaps it's meant to be "a landmark in itself"? in either case, the source (a) is not reliable, being a random blog, and (b) doesn't support the statement cited to it. the source only discusses physical heights of buildings, whereas it's being quoted as having something to do with the more vague "rivaling the prominence of". i realize that prominence can mean height, but in that case, it's not downtown l.a. vs. times square, but an unbuilt hotel in downtown rivaling the empire state building. then there's the issue of the led panels on the wilshire grand. they're not on there now, and it's an open question if they'll be on there given recent hostility towards proposed led panels on football stadium, and if that's the point of the sentence, we ought to say so explicitly, in which case i'd argue that it falls afoul of wp:crystalball. personally, i think that the sentence along with the source should be dropped, as the building's not even scheduled to be finished until 2017, and downtown is already so important for so many reasons that one more random tall hotel isn't going to suddenly change its "prominence", in whatever way we take that word. yes? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The Wilshire Grand Tower I is an unbuilt proposal. Billion-dollar projects aren't so special nowadays, and it's hard to imagine the hotel will become a landmark. Time Square is a single intersection, while downtown covers hundreds of acres and hundreds of buildings. We already list some downtwn landmarks. I suppose we could say something about filming locations - Downtown has been a frequent location for films (as a stand in for New York and other cities and in its own right) and as a setting for car commercials. But we have to be careful about opening that can of worms. Otherwise we could get something like Venice in the media.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: the original text, as added, was " L.A. Live is quickly becoming a landmark of itself..."[3] which makes more sense. Even so, I think we can trim it.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

deleted. what a weird place for that sentence to come from. is there a fast way to track down these diffs you find, or do you have to click through the whole history by hand? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's helpful, in some cases, to review the history of a passage, to see when it was added, who added it, and what it looked like originally. At the top of every revision history page there's a link title "Revision history search". You can also go to it directly [4].   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks, i never knew what that link did. very useful. also, about film locations: i'm not personally interested in working on something like that, and i'm conflicted about it being in the article. it seems beneath the appropriate level of dignity somehow. but if anyone wants to do it, it would be ok with me if done well. i think you're right about that section of the venice article, though, and what an analogous section here might become. it's a disgrace. i've wanted to tackle it, but it seems too far gone to face.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Filming locations, as a general concept, might be mentioned in the 'culture' section. But I don't think that we should start listing movies or videos filmed in Los Angeles.   Will Beback  talk  10:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

landmarks section

first of all, i think we should add definite articles where appropriate, e.g. the Hollywood sign. this would conform with local usage and break up the bright blue wall of wikilinks there. also, anyone have feelings on how list should be organized? i don't mind alphabetizing it, and am comfortable with leaving it random. i just added the bradbury building in there, and put it in the middle for no particular reason.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles would be an improvement, if only for the described color change. I have no opinion about sort order. There are lists and a category of landmarks. Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles, California, List of sites of interest in the Los Angeles area, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California. Should we point readers to those too?   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

LA page needs a makeover

Los Angeles is a city of glamour but this page shows nothing of this sorts. The whole LA page needs a makeover. Please ditch all old pictures of skyline, cityscape and everything else. LA appears gritty and looks poorly represented. There should be more vibrant pictures of the city, displaying the various diverse landscape and multi-centered cityscape and whatnot. Come on guys LA a great city and deserves better. The page was looking fine months back, but it seems someone has sabotage the page and reverted back to something completely hideous. Anyway those are my thoughts, thank you.

98.176.203.39 (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)jayz

Thank you for your input, but general complaints aren't nearly as useful as actual changes, so Be Bold and have at it! Your edits are welcome.--Louiedog (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article hasn't changed much in the past year, so I don't know what the IP editor is talking about, or what kinds of photos he'd prefer. Cityscapes seem logical to have in an article about a city.

That said, it'd be nice to get this article to featured status, like the San Francisco article is. That'd be a worthwhile project for an editor or two.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

i'm happy to help out. i've never been involved with featured articles. what kinds of things need to be done? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! The standards are here: WP:FACR. They're a bit vague and subject to the interpretations of those doing the reviews. From reading reviews of other FA candidates (WP:FAC), I can see that consistency and good writing are very important. I'm working on getting the citations formatted consistently. Probably the most time-intensive project would be checking sources to make sure we're summarizing them accurately. [And adding sources to any unsourced statements]. Copy-editing is equally important. I'd thought that as soon as the major problems are addressed then we could ask someone to do a "peer review". That'd give us a clearer list of things to do. I think the basic article is pretty sound, but at FA all the little things have to be right too.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, i'll read through the references and check the sources to make sure the summaries are accurate. can you think of a workable system in case others want to help out? i thought for one, that as i check them, if they're ok, i'll just update the accessdate to mark that they've been checked (and i'll do them in numerical order). Also, i was thinking i'd start a new section here for questionable ones. let me know what you think of this as a way of proceeding. unfortunately it turns out that the first one is questionable (see below)— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles, I see that, if this were promoted, it would be the largest city with an FA article in the US, and perhaps anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

microclimate (regarding Los_Angeles#Climate)

i believe that this:

The Los Angeles area is also subject to phenomena typical of a microclimate. As such, the temperatures can vary as much as 36 °F (20 °C) between inland areas and the coast.

ought to have a source. there is quite possibly one in the main article on l.a. climate, but i thought i'd put it up here to remind myself or someone. it might also be worth rewriting so that it doesn't sound like there's a causal link between microclimates and such large temperature variations.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

oh also, there's nothing about the santa ana winds in the article. that seems bad. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

source removed from climate section and tornadoes

this: <:ref>Rasmussen, Cecilia (March 10, 2005). "We're Not in Kansas, but We Do Get Twisters – Los Angeles Times". Articles.latimes.com. Retrieved January 8, 2009.</ref>

is what i took out of there, because it didn't support the statement, and was redundant to the other one. however, i thought that there might be things in it worth including in the articles, esp tornadoes, so am putting it here as a reminder and for comments.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

blind thrust earthquakes

regarding this:

The Los Angeles basin and metropolitan area are also at risk from blind thrust earthquakes.<:ref>"Earthquake and Volcano Deformation and Stress Triggering Research Group home page". Quake.usgs.gov. Retrieved October 6, 2008.</ref>

i can't verify the source because it's paywalled broken. perhaps someone else can? i will look for alternate sources a little later and also think about whether the sentence is super-important or not. maybe there are sources in the blind thrust earthquakes article? i haven't checked there yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, i found a live source for this statement, which doesn't address the question of whether it matters. i'll change it out now, but the sentence still seems a little cryptic and random.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Blind thrust earthquake#Los Angeles - the article has a special section just for the city - perhaps added by the same editor. However to the lay reader the exact nature of the faults is probably too detailed. Also, the information may be outdated. For decades the oil companies conducted very detailed geological surveys - spending far greater sums than were available to academic geologists. However that data was all proprietary until they released it a about ten years ago. The new information revealed may blind faults. One fact which came to light, if I recall correctly, is that the basin is filled with alluvium to a depth of 8,000', where previously it had been thought to be only 3,000' deep. However the detailed geology descriptions are best put in Los Angeles Basin or other geographical articles.

Should this section be renamed "Earthquakes", since that is all it addresses?   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, i'm not sure right now what to do about the level of detail on earthquakes. i'll think about it, but if anything occurs to anyone, that's good too. i would rather not rename the section to earthquakes, though. i think there's more to be said about the geology. the first thing that comes to mind is the methane and oil underground in various places and the tarpits. is it really true that the tarpits aren't in the article? perhaps a brief mention of methane explosion from subway tunneling, whenever that was (90s?).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

i checked out a book (printed on actual paper) on the geology of southern california, and there's also this: Transverse Ranges and the sources it uses, so i will try to write another paragraph for the geology section which focuses on everything but earthquakes.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

flora section

here is what we have, where i've struck the parts that seem to me to be satisfactorily sourced:

The Los Angeles area is rich in native plant species due in part to a diversity in habitats, including beaches, wetlands, and mountains. The most prevalent botanical environment is coastal sage scrub,<:ref name="Miller2008">Miller, George Oxford (15 January 2008). Landscaping with Native Plants of Southern California. Voyageur Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7603-2967-2. Retrieved 6 October 2011.</ref> which covers the hillsides in combustible chaparral. Native plants include: California poppy, matilija poppy, toyon, Coast Live Oak, and Giant Wildrye. Many of these native species, such as the Los Angeles sunflower, have become so rare as to be considered endangered. Though it is not native to the area, the official tree of Los Angeles is the Coral Tree (Erythrina caffra)<:ref name="Innovation1979">National Research Council (U.S.). Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation (1979). Tropical legumes: resources for the future : report of an ad hoc panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, Commission on International Relations, National Research Council. National Academies. p. 258. NAP:14318. Retrieved 6 October 2011.</ref> and the official flower of Los Angeles is the Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae).<:ref name="Communications2003">"Flower". Los Angeles Magazine. Emmis Communications. April 2003. p. 62. ISSN 1522-9149. Retrieved 6 October 2011.</ref> Mexican Fan Palms, California Fan Palms, and Canary Island Palms can be seen throughout the Los Angeles area, despite the latter being non-indigenous to Southern California.

i'm soliciting input and opinions here on which parts of the rest of it need sourcing, expanding, contracting, deleting, something else?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

unsourced statements in environment subsection

here it is, with the statements that seem unsourced to me bolded (this might be more clear than the strike-through method i tried above, also, this time i'm leaving the refs unmunged, since they don't seem relevant to discussion here, also i'm not bolding the statement discussed in the section above this):

The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to "the valley of smoke." 'Owing to geography, heavy reliance on automobiles, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex, Los Angeles suffers from air pollution in the form of smog. The Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley are susceptible to atmospheric inversion, which holds in the exhausts from road vehicles, airplanes, locomotives, shipping, manufacturing, and other sources. The smog season lasts from May to October.Unlike other large cities that rely on rain to clear smog, Los Angeles gets only 15 inches (380 mm) of rain each year: pollution accumulates over many consecutive days. Issues of air quality in Los Angeles and other major cities led to the passage of early national environmental legislation, including the Clean Air Act. More recently, the state of California has led the nation in working to limit pollution by mandating low-emission vehicles. Smog is expected to continue to drop in the coming years due to aggressive steps to reduce it, electric and hybrid cars, improvements in mass transit, and other pollution reducing measures.

The number of Stage 1 smog alerts in Los Angeles has declined from over 100 per year in the 1970s to almost zero in the new millennium. Despite improvement, the 2006 and 2007 annual reports of the American Lung Association ranked the city as the most polluted in the country with short-term particle pollution and year-round particle pollution. In 2008, the city was ranked the second most polluted and again had the highest year-round particulate pollution. In addition, the groundwater is increasingly threatened by MTBE from gas stations and perchlorate from rocket fuel. With pollution still a significant problem, the city continues to take aggressive steps to improve air and water conditions. The city met its goal of providing 20 percent of the city's power from renewable sources in 2010.

it's possible that this line: Owing to geography, heavy reliance on automobiles, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex, Los Angeles suffers from air pollution in the form of smog. is reasonably supported by the source for the sentence that follows it, but i wanted other opinions.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

valley of smoke (environment subsection)

this line is well sourced and everything:

The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to "the valley of smoke."

but it seems weirdly isolated in the paragraph. i'm sure that i've seen discussions of how this relates to the inversion layer, and will be looking for sources to use to write a transition from this sentence into the rest of the para, which i think is a good thing to do. i'm putting it here for comments and source suggestions if anyone has any.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

the size and significance of the port

regarding this:

<:ref name='citydata'>"City-data.com". City-data.com. Retrieved 7 October 2011.</ref> The contiguous ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together comprise the fifth-busiest port in the world and the most significant port in the Western Hemisphere and is vital to trade within the Pacific Rim.<:ref name='citydata' />

i updated the accessdate since the source supports the first sentence that's cited to it. i can't see how it supports the second (appearing here). i think it's important information, so i'm putting it here for discussion. some possibilities: (a) find a source which says that stuff, (b) rewrite sentence to fit what source says, (c) i'm clueless and the source actually does support the sentence in some way i didn't notice. my preference would be for (c) so we could move on.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

multiple citations to same reference

are there feelings on the best way to handle this? i think it's going to come up again. for now, regarding this:

The settlement remained a small ranch town for decades, but by 1820 the population had increased to about 650 residents.<:ref>Guinn, James Miller (1902). Historical and biographical record of southern California: containing a history of southern California from its earliest settlement to the opening year of the twentieth century. Chapman pub. co. p. 63. Retrieved September 30, 2011.</ref>

and the subsequent use of same source, different page, i repeated full citation mostly as a placeholder. i'm not sure what best practice is considered to be on wp for this kind of thing. advice is welcome. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Good catch and good fix. Given the current set of sources, it looks like this might not come up often with this article, since we don't use many books as sources more than once. I recently wrote an article using a different footnote system that is better suited for giving different page numbers, Golden Domes. But that wouldn't be suitable here. We could simply say, for the second cite, "Guinn (1902) p.63". For FA, the main thing is that the citations are consistent. For the time being, I think your stopgap is fine.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, what worries me about stuff like "Guinn (1902) p.63" is that to stay intelligible it relies on the refs staying in the same order in the body of the article, which may not happen. this seems to me to be a weak spot in the otherwise lovely cite.php style. i'll just leave it alone for now and we can figure it out later when we have an idea of how actually important it is.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

how do you all feel about this: Template:Rp? I'm trying it out over at Igal Roodenko, which is not nearly so high-stakes as here, so you can see what it looks like. I like the fact that the template documentation page says that it's conceivable that someone will fix this problem with cite.php at some point and that then all citations will be modernizable by bot. i was also encouraged by the template documentation's statement that Given that Featured Article and sometimes even Good Article review generally insist upon specific facts being cited with specific page numbers, Cite.php's limitations are in fact a severe problem for editors. (so that we might as well get a system in place now that allows this so we can do it as we go) i was looking into the possibility of using harvard style citations, but it looks too overwhelming to convert this article at this point. the rp template is not aesthetically impressive to me, but it seems quite convenient for both editing and reading. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That'd work. Again, I don't think it'll be a big issue with the article. Let's just pick a format and stick with it.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a better example at Daily_Bruin#History. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

sourcing the fortune 500

ok, we have this:

The city is home to seven Fortune 500 companies. They are aerospace contractor Northrop Grumman, energy company Occidental Petroleum, healthcare provider Health Net, metals distributor Reliance Steel & Aluminum, engineering firm AECOM, real estate group CB Richard Ellis and builder Tutor Perini.

and here are sources for each company:

• reliance
• tutor perini
• cb richard ellis
• aecom
• occidental
• northrop grumman
• health net

of course, this just proves that there are at least 7 fortune 500 companies, so i went looking for a source that said that there were 7 and found a mess:

• these people say that there are 5
• these people say that there are 23

there are other sources with other numbers in between. part of the explanation lies in the fact that northrop moved to DC, so now there it seems that there are 6. the source above that says that there are 23 is wack, because e.g. it lists disney, which is in burbank, not in l.a. at all. i'm tending to believe cnn.com, which leaves us with the question of which are the 6, given that the locus classicus for the fortune 500 has not yet figured out that northrop is not in l.a. any more. ideas?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

city sales tax paragraph in business section

regarding this:

The metropolitan area contains the headquarters of companies who moved outside of the city to escape its taxes but keep the benefits of proximity. For example, Los Angeles charges a gross receipts tax based on a percentage of business revenue, while many neighboring cities charge only small flat fees.<:ref>"Evaluation of alternatives to the city's gross receipts business tax" (PDF). Muniservies.com. 1997. Retrieved 14 October 2011.</ref><:ref>Competitiveness 22.</ref>

that pdf there talks an awful lot about the business revenue tax on companies outside the city limits, but doesn't seem to support the sentence that was formerly cited to it, or if it does support it, it seems to require synthesis. i moved it to support the next sentence, because it does, but i don't know what to do about the sentence it used to support. i think that it might be worth having a sentence or two about the (seems to me to be anyway) unique tax structure, but i'm not sure what they ought to be. i also removed the reference to "competitiveness 22" because i couldn't figure out what it meant. seeking comments, as always.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

post office in economy section

is it normal to say where the post office is? i think we could lose the sentence. it's not like there's anything interesting about this particular post office, it's more a processing facility than anything. this: Cory Stargel; Sarah Stargel (24 August 2009). Early Downtown Los Angeles. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-0-7385-7003-7. Retrieved 14 October 2011. has some interesting info on former main post offices, but they don't seem to go in the economy section.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

usc sentence in economy section

i have no problems with the content of this:

The University of Southern California (USC) is the city's largest private sector employer and contributes $4 billion annually to the local economy.<:ref>George, Evan (December 11, 2006). "Trojan Dollars: Study Finds USC Worth $4 Billion Annually to L.A. County". Los Angeles Downtown News. Archived from the original on April 30, 2009.</ref>

the first clause (largest private sector employer) could be supported by the pdf reference in the sentence following this one in the section if necessary. i can't check the archived source right now. i don't know if it's dead or if it's a connection problem on my end. putting it here to remind myself to deal with it later or to encourage someone else to give it a try.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

hollywood in the culture section

about this:

Los Angeles is home to Hollywood, globally recognized as the epicenter of the motion picture industry. A testament to its preeminence in film, the city plays host to the annual Academy Awards, the oldest and one of the most prominent award ceremonies in the world. Furthermore, there are 54 film festivals every year, which translates into more than one every week.<:ref name="autogenerated1">"Microsoft PowerPoint – TTMA 2008 Short presentation [Compatibility Mode]" (PDF). Retrieved April 13, 2010.</ref> Finally, Los Angeles is home to the USC School of Cinematic Arts, the oldest<:ref>Waxman, Sharon (31 January 2006). "At U.S.C., a Practical Emphasis in Film". New York Times. Retrieved 14 October 2011.</ref> and largest school of its kind in the United States.

the first sentence seems to need a rewrite because it doesn't distinguish between the metonymic use of hollywood to mean the american film industry and the actual place in the city. probably it's not necessary to find a source for this fact? the next sentence needs to be rewritten because it just does, and if i can think of a way to do it, i will. the thing about the film festivals seems too dependent on which year it is, and too definite about 54, to be adequately sourceable. the source it's cited to, even if it was ever reliable, is now dead. i think we should dump this sentence. if someone can find a source that talks about the number of film festivals in a way which won't become outdated next week, i think we should include it. i think we should have a source for usc film school being the largest. i haven't looked too hard for one yet, but will. my personal inclination is to mention the ucla film school too, but am throwing it up here for comments as i realize that this is potentially bias on my part. possibly it'd be good to mention the fact that there are a zillion other film schools, and maybe mention Los Angeles Film School, or maybe not. it just popped into my head.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

how many performing arts groups and film festivals are there in l.a.?

i removed these sentences (one already mentioned above, but no luck in sourcing):

Furthermore, there are 54 film festivals every year, which translates into more than one every week.<:ref name="autogenerated1">"Microsoft PowerPoint – TTMA 2008 Short presentation [Compatibility Mode]" (PDF). Retrieved April 13, 2010.</ref>

and

There are over 1,000 musical, theater, dance, and performing groups.<:ref name="autogenerated1"/>

because (a) i can't find sources for them, (b) the numbers are likely to change, and (c) the first one at least seems fairly random. i think there's no need to fix the first one, but the second one is probably true and phraseable in a way whose truth won't decay so fast. perhaps someone has an idea or a source?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

los angeles weatherbox

the second source for that template, which is this: <:ref>"NOAA". NOAA.</ref>

is messing with my head since it's dead and the other source for the information seems to be included in the first source of the template. i left a message on the talk page over there: Template talk:Los Angeles weatherbox to see if anyone cared if i removed the reference for the template. also, i checked and updated the other, good, source over there to match our system. this is just in case anyone's wondering why i skipped that one.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

no one on the template talk page said anything for two weeks, so i went ahead and made this change.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

bank mergers in economy section

regarding this sentence:

Until the mid-1990s, Los Angeles was home to many major financial institutions in the western United States. Mergers meant reporting to headquarters in other cities. For instance, First Interstate Bancorp merged with Wells Fargo in 1996, Great Western Bank merged with Washington Mutual in 1998, and Security Pacific Bank merged with Bank of America in 1992. Los Angeles was also home to the Pacific Exchange, until it closed in 2001.

why is it in here? what does it have to do with the economy of the city? perhaps the history of the economy of the city, but not with neither context nor references. thought?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

i just took it out, as there were no objections or comments here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

museums and so forth

regarding this:

In fact, Los Angeles has more museums per capita than any other city in the world.<:ref>"Family Fun in Los Angeles". Csmc.edu. Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref> Some of the notable museums are the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (the largest encyclopedic museum west of Chicago), the Getty Center (part of the larger J. Paul Getty Trust, the world's wealthiest art institution), and the Museum of Contemporary Art. A significant number of art galleries are concentrated on Gallery Row, and thousands attend the monthly Downtown Art Walk there.

first of all, i've bolded the sentences that i think we need sources for; i'm going to look right after i save this section, but i thought i'd throw them up here for others to see. also, i am slightly worried about the reliability of the cedars sinai source. it's not that i think cedars sinai is going to make this kind of stuff up, but the page linked to is a guide for patients who come to CS from out of town to be treated, has no references, and a relentlessly promotional tone. the purpose of the page is less to describe los angeles than to convince people that it is a good place to go to get illnesses treated. i'd prefer a better source for this, and will also look, but again, perhaps others will find one first.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

oh, also, can someone else take a look at the wikilink to "encyclopedic museum" and see if they think it applies to LACMA? my feeling is that LACMA is not in fact an encyclopedic museum. they seem to be talking more about places like the louvre than art museums. perhaps what's actually true is that LACMA is the largest art museum west of chicago? in which case i think we should probably just drop the sentence, since most things in los angeles that aren't the largest in the country are in fact the largest west of either chicago or new york, so the fact isn't actually that interesting.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, i fixed this paragraph to my satisfaction. comments?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

media section

first of all, only one statement in here is sourced. that seems roughly appropriate to me since i don't think anything about the newspapers actually needs to be sourced. i thought i'd point it out here, as others may disagree. also, this sentence:

Many cities adjacent to Los Angeles also have their own daily newspapers whose coverage and availability overlaps into certain Los Angeles neighborhoods. Examples include The Daily Breeze (serving the South Bay), and The Long Beach Press-Telegram.

seems randomly irrelevant to anything. i'd like to delete it and will unless there are objections here at some point.

Also, for the future, i'd like to expand the sentence on immigrant weeklies a little, listing a few of the major ones, esp those with wp articles, by name rather than solely grouping by language. i haven't checked into the possibility of doing so (like i don't know how many have articles), but am mentioning it here as note to self, request for comments, and invitation to participate, as usual.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

rams/raiders in coliseum and sports section generally

regarding this sentence:

Prior to 1995, the Rams called Memorial Coliseum home (1946–1979) and the Raiders played their home games at Memorial Coliseum from 1982 to 1994.<:ref>Hong, Peter (29 June 1995). "Few Tears Here". Los Angeles Times. p. B1. Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref>

i removed the reference from the article because it did not support the sentence cited to it. however, i'm putting it here, because it supports something, and maybe someone wants to add the something that it supports. also, i improved the citation style above by adding url for article and standardizing dates. there are very few sources in the sports section in general. do we need more?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

date formatting

although i started out with dd Month yyyy, i've been trying to stick to Month, dd yyyy since a lot of them were like that. on the other hand, the super-useful citation making tool for gbooks defaults to dd Month yyyy, so it would be easier (for me at least) to switch to that format. if no one objects, i will gradually make them all consistently in that format. if anyone strongly prefers another format, i don't care that much, just let me know, and i will stick to it and switch all nonconforming dates over. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The main thing at FA is consistency. I'm fine with dd Month yyyy. Proquest, which I use a lot, has converted to that date scheme so it's easier for me to use it when adding refs from them. I'll try to help with the conversion.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, good. let's go with dd Month yyyy then. i should have brought it up yesterday when i thought of it, but damage is not so done.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

if there's more to discuss about this issue, can we discuss it here before changing everything? i'm getting the dates all changed to the new format, and checking the refs at the same time. if this is too slow, anyone could go ahead and change all the date formats without also checking the refs. since the above discussion has been up there for three weeks, i thought it was settled. i totally forgot to change the date style template, though, sorry.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, no problem; someone was just sweeping around making date formatting consistent with the templates. i'm re-green-checking this section— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

seahawks attempted move to los angeles

regarding this:

Since the franchise's departures the NFL as an organization, and individual NFL owners, have attempted to relocate a team to the city. Immediately following the 1995 NFL season, Seattle Seahawks owner Ken Behring went as far as packing up moving vans to start play in the Rose Bowl under a new team name and logo for the 1996 season. The State of Washington filed a lawsuit to prevent the move.<:ref>"Seattle Seahawks owner Ken Behring announces move of NFL franchise". Business Wire. 2 February 1996. Retrieved 22 October 2011.</ref>

it seems like too much information, although i think a trimmed version would be useful in describing efforts to get an nfl team to la. suggestions? if no one has any, i'll get to it when i finish checking the sources. also, the only source cited (a) doesn't mention that behring was going to move them to l.a. and barely mentions that the state of washington sued him. it's mostly about how he countersued, and it's a press release, so whatever of this material is kept should probably be resourced. i think it's just good enough to stay in, but shouldn't be hard to replace.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

couple of sentences about catholicism

regarding these two sentences in the catholicism para:

Construction of the cathedral marked a coming of age of the city's Catholic, heavily Latino community. There are numerous Catholic churches and parishes throughout Los Angeles.

i do know what the first sentence is about, although it's unclearly written. i remember reading a bunch of articles about the significance that the latino oriented cathedral had in contrast to the anglo-irish emphasis of previous major church building efforts. unfortunately i can't locate any of them right now. i'm sure that that's what the author of the sentence meant to discuss. on the other hand, a literal reading of the sentence suggests although doesn't quite say that the population of the city is heavily catholic. it clearly means that the catholic community is heavily latino, which seems to me to be a claim that needs a source, possibly separate from the other source needed for whatever the coming of age turns into. so i'm putting this up here in case anyone disagrees, or has some of the sources, or can rewrite sentence to be more clear. i'll look too. also, i'd like to delete the second sentence. the first sentence of the para already says that it's largest archdiocese in the country. obviously there are numerous churches and parishes. but i thought i'd leave the suggestion up here for a while to see how others feel about it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

jewish population in city

about this:

With 621,000 Jews in the metropolitan area (490,000 in city proper), the region has the second largest population of Jews in the United States.<:ref name=Jews>"World Jewish Population". SimpleToRemember.com. Retrieved 23 October 2011.</ref>

first of all, the reference that was formerly there along with this one didn't contain all the information, was badly dated, and didn't seem reliable. this remaining reference at least contains all the information. on the other hand, the section on city jewish populations in the source is neither dated nor sourced, and the website doesn't seem to be intrinsically claimable as a reliable source. the surrounding data there is sourced, and the sources date from the mid 1990s to around 2001, so i'm assuming that this data comes from the same era. it may, therefore, be outdated. i think that apart from changing numbers, it's almost certainly still true, but i also think we need a better source for it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

last couple items on the religion section

regarding the last two paras in the religion section:

The Hollywood region of Los Angeles also has several significant headquarters, churches, and the Celebrity Center of Scientology.

Because of Los Angeles' large multi-ethnic population, a wide variety of faiths are practiced, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, various Eastern Orthodox Churches, Sufism and others. Immigrants from Asia for example, have formed a number of significant Buddhist congregations making the city home to the greatest variety of Buddhists in the world.

a few questions:

1. is giving scientology its own paragraph undue weight? i don't mind mentioning it, but the level of detail seems too high here to me. others? i propose that we cut it down to mentioning the major facility, whatever that is. also, why is hollywood singled out? what they say is true, but again, seems like undue weight. i'd also like to see a source for whatever sentence ends up going in here.
2. do we need sources for the other kinds of religions listed in the next para? is the list complete?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While We're Talking about Religion...

...just thought I let you know that I flip-flopped the Jewish and Mormon paragraphs. Since the Jews have a larger population than the Mormons in the city, and a much larger cultural impact, it seemed fair to put them second to the Catholics. I added a couple sentences to the Jews paragraph. I also removed one sentence from the Mormon paragraph, as most of that information is already in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in California and Los Angeles California Temple. And, if nobody objects, I'm thinking of working in a paragraph about the various protestant denominations in L.A., especially with regard to African-American congregations (this paragraph would slot between the Jewish and Mormon paragraphs). I am also going to add mention of the Angelus Temple in the morning Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I recently drafted a new paragraph on Protestant denominations. See #Protestants above. I'd also suggested altering the some of the other materials in a way consistent with your ideas. I haven't put it in yet because I wanted to add some citations which I haven't gotten to yet. Do you propose any changes to it?   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

i think flipping the jews and the mormons is good, as is trimming the mormon para, and i like your addition, Purplebackpack89, of historically jewish neighborhoods, although highland park maybe should go on there, and i think i know where to find sources for that stuff. my worry about the west l.a. and s.f. valley part, which i took out yesterday, is that it seems to me to need a source, and it also doesn't seem true to me. e.g. where're hancock park, fairfax, and beverlywood on the list, and the san fernando valley doesn't seem to me to be especially more jewish than either of those places, and the s.f. valley seems to big to me to be described as a place per se, i mean, there probably aren't concentrations of jews in pacoima, right? and if we're not going to a neighborhood level of detail, the west side plus the valley make up so much of the land in the city that the sentence is hardly informative. also, where in the world are we going to find sources for that kind of thing? i mean, if you have some sources that explain the geographical distribution of jews, i'd be thrilled to have the information in there, but i can't find any yet. does it seem reasonable to leave the sentence out until we have a source, and then write stuff to reflect the source? also, please do take a look at what Will Beback wrote about protestants above if you haven't already, your ideas seem to fit right in, and the more input the better. thanks for taking an interest!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented on Will's draft above. With regard to Jews in Los Angeles, since over 10% of Los Angeles' population is Jewish, it doesn't seem surprising to me that large swaths of Los Angeles have large Jewish populations (and to be fair, though the Valley and West L.A. are large in area, they are some of the least densely populated areas of the city). I have read that 40-50% of LA's Jews now live in the Valley, primarily in the Central and West Valley...will get source for that. And RE: Hancock Park, Fairfax, Beverlywood...you bring up a very interesting point, and that's "What constitutes West L.A.?" In the most narrow of definitions, those three neighborhoods are left out. My L.A. History professor, by contrast, takes a very broad definition of West L.A., one that begins at MacArthur Park. I believe all or part of the three neighborhoods you mention are part of West L.A. in the majority of definitions Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

this is no place to replay that old debate, but if west l.a. starts at macarthur park, then the statement "the majority of people of type X live in west l.a. and the san fernando valley" is almost true for any value of X, which is what i meant above by saying that it wasn't so informative. i have no doubt that 40-50% of the jews live in the valley, but it's almost surely because 40-50% of the people of l.a. live in the valley see here, 2010 census. according to the official city of los angeles definition, the eastern border of the west side is beverly hills or west hollywood depending, so if we follow that, it also leaves out those neighborhoods, but as you can see from this interesting map there are some people who will go out to macarthur park, although very few. however, if we're thinking of the reader, who, according to this map and the comments thereon, is probabalistically most likely to start the west side at la cienega, that leaves out fairfax and beverlywood. hancock park must be mid-city by almost everyone's definition, no? my feeling is that we could avoid a lot of trouble trying to find sources if we just left out the geographical locations, since i think they're true purely by virtue of population distribution and nothing much to do with where jews live. if we're going to keep it in, i think we should probably stick to the official city definition of what the west side is, since it's sourceable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

schools

here's the section (used some color bolding too just to make it easier to pick out sentences):

Los Angeles Unified School District serves almost all of the city of Los Angeles, as well as several surrounding communities, with a student population around 800,000.<:ref>"US Census, District information". Census.gov. Retrieved 24 October 2011.</ref> After California Proposition 13 (1978)|Proposition 13 was approved in 1978, urban school districts had considerable trouble with funding. LAUSD has become known for its underfunded, overcrowded and poorly maintained campuses, although its 162 Magnet schools help compete with local private schools.<:ref>"Magnet schools just as competitive as private schools". Archived from the original on 4 May 2007. Retrieved 24 October 2011.</ref> Several small sections of Los Angeles are in the Las Virgenes Unified School District. Los Angeles County Office of Education operates the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts. The Los Angeles Public Library system operates 72 public libraries in the city.<:ref>"LA Public Library". Lapl.org. Retrieved 24 October 2011.</ref> Enclaves of unincorporated areas are served by the County of Los Angeles Public Library, many are within walking distance to City of Los Angeles residents.

1. almost all...communities; does this need a source?
2. after prop 13...trouble with funding; seems like non sequitur where it's placed, seems to need source and slight expansion
3. lausd has become..campuses; placing in sentence with magnet schools seems to create a sense of bias; they're unrelated. also needs a source.
4. several small sections...las virgenes usd; needs source?
5. enclaves of unincorporated...lapl; source?
6. many are within walking distance...; seems unsourceable, vague, irrelevant. i would like to cut it.

thoughts?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

p.s. would content on recent proposition L be useful, relevant here? more info on central library, e.g. history of it, wpa murals in it?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

freeways

this subsection seems to me to be in good shape (in terms of sources, not precluding rewriting) except for this:

Despite the congestion in the city, the mean travel time for commuters in Los Angeles is shorter than other major cities, including New York City, Philadelphia and Chicago. Los Angeles' mean travel time for work commutes in 2006 was 29.2 minutes, similar to those of San Francisco and Washington, D.C.<:ref name="ACS2006">"American Community Survey 2006, Table S0802". U.S. Census Bureau.</ref>

that source is dead and i can't find anything to replace it yet. one possibility is to rewrite the sentence a little so that it's sourceable from the forbes source i found for the first couple sentences in the para. that discusses this issue, but not with such precision as to allow this sentence to be sourced to it. i'm assuming that we don't need sources to talk about which freeways go where, because it's a manifest fact.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

transit systems subsection

i think i got everything in there up-to-date sourced that needed a source, except for the statement that the bus system is "the second busiest in the country." i will look around for this, but just didn't see it in the sources that were there before or the new ones i found. i hope i'm just missing something. it seems that everything unsourced other than this doesn't need sourcing?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Protestants

Hello, The Los Angeles article seems very thorough, and under "religion" seemed thorough also ( even to Zoroastrianism or Sikhism ).

I think it is true and important to also include the 100 of 1000's that are not noted at all, those who are Protestants. (Presbyterian [attended by Ronald Reagan], Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, with a host of others who are Protestants in Los Angeles)

It struck me as very strange that the article, as sincerely best I could read it, leaves the impression there is not one protestant in the city.

thank you very much for all your efforts!, sincerely, K D Rohrig

66.74.41.231 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)K D Rohrig

Not done: Please write the exact text you'd like to see inserted, including reliable sources. You can then reactivate this edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has a good point. It's a glaring omission. Aside from plain statistics, there are several notable facts about Los Angeles and variosu Protestant denominations. For example, Fundamentalism (Bible Institute Of Los Angeles) and Pentecostalism (Azusa Street Revival) had their origins in L.A., at least by some accounts. Billy Graham had his first success in L.A. Chick tracts are published there. Aimee Semple McPherson and Gene Scott were influential preachers based in Los Angeles. Potter's House Christian Fellowship may have started in L.A., in connection to Robert P. Shuler and Charles E. Fuller worked in an around L.A. Alamo Christian Foundation is based in Hollywood. The Local Churches movement's first US center was in L.A., and it was an important center of teh International Churches of Christ. There are many notable black churches, including West Angeles Church of God in Christ, Second Baptist Church (Los Angeles, California), and Crenshaw Christian Center, and notable black ministers, such as Jesse Lee Peterson and Solomon Burke. Other notable Protestant churches include McCarty Memorial Christian Church, First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood and Bel Air Presbyterian Church, the latter perhaps one of the largest in that denomination and organizer of the famous Easter service at the Hollywood Bowl. What else?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to convert that into encyclopedic prose. Each of these would be a sentence or two. Let's edit this text freely - no need for authorship notations.   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• First Protestant congregation: First Methodist service in 1850, oldest continuously used church 1867.[5]
• Largest denominations, and other good statistics. (FYI, the Census does not ask about religion, so other sources are necessary. ) (General statistics for the city are probably unavailable, though there are figures for the county.[6][7] So instead I'll see if I can find figures just for selected groups, such as those which are the largest in the county.) I can't find any statistics for denominations for the city - just for the county. If we can find them I think it'd be worth including them.
• Early denominations: Fundamentalism (Bible Institute Of Los Angeles) and Pentecostalism (Azusa Street Revival)
• Middle: International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (and Aimee Semple, Life Pacific College, Angelus Temple)
• Later: Alamo Christian Foundation, Potter's House Christian Fellowship
• Important center for: International Churches of Christ, Local Churches (relatively unimportant)
• Churches: First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles (first service 1854), West Angeles Church of God in Christ, Second Baptist Church, Crenshaw Christian Center, McCarty Memorial Christian Church, First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood and Bel Air Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles California Temple, Berendo Street Baptist Church (for decades the largest Korean Church in America)[8]
• Ministers: Billy Graham, Robert P. Shuler, Charles E. Fuller, Gene Scott, Jesse Lee Peterson and Solomon Burke

I'm with you on this one. just wondering a little about chick tracts. chick is based in ontario, not l.a. perhaps you're thinking that the things are an essential part of the religious culture of l.a., which i agree with, but we'll need a spin, i think. the rest of your list is quite good, and i'm sure sources can be found. gene scott, good god. i'd forgotten all about him.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. While Jack Chick was born in L.A., the tracts were published in Rancho Cucamonga or Ontario.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The first Protestant service in Los Angeles was a Methodist meeting held in a private home in 1850 and the oldest operating Protestant church still was founded in 1867. In the early 1900s the Bible Institute Of Los Angeles published the founding documents of the Christian Fundamentalist movement and the Azusa Street Revival launched Pentecostalism. Aimee Semple McPherson broadcast over the radio in the 1920s from the Angelus Temple, home of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel and its Life Pacific College. In later years Tony Alamo founded the Alamo Christian Foundation in Hollywood, and the Potter's House Christian Fellowship also had its origins in the city. Billy Graham's first big success came in L.A. and notable ministers connected to the city include Robert P. Shuler, Charles E. Fuller, Gene Scott, Jesse Lee Peterson, and Solomon Burke. Important churches in the city include First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, Bel Air Presbyterian Church, First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles, West Angeles Church of God in Christ, Second Baptist Church, Crenshaw Christian Center, McCarty Memorial Christian Church, and Berendo Street Baptist Church (for decades the largest Korean Church in America).

There's a first draft. I think the length is too long, but I also expect to cut the material on Mormons and Jews to keep the "Religion" section within a reasonable length. Some other featured city articles don't have religion sections at all, so we should keep this compact. I'd probably cut some churches and ministers.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good start, i think you're right that it's probably too long. if we're going to start cutting, i think that tony alamo, as colorful as the guy's trajectory has been, is not close to as important as most of the others you mention. i think that your first three sentences are absolutely essential, though, and the rest of the stuff i mostly think could either go in or out. i'm not so sure that it's wise to be guided purely by discussions of religions in other feature city articles, though. religion is part of what makes l.a. itself, and the religious life of the city has been much more a part of the world's discourse than it might be for other places. i wouldn't expect to go to an article on seattle or cleveland looking for info about the state of religion there, but los angeles, yes. this is part of the reason why i think it's important to balance out the existing religion section with material on protestantism, which at least from azusa street and building to a fever pitch with sister aimee has significantly driven cultural development in l.a. in ways that have been broadly discussed in rs. oh, and i think a mention of biola would be good, you had it in list, but not in paragraph. i will try to propose something.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say, considering the history of religion in Los Angeles, that it isn't too long at all. I think it needs a topic sentence, something on the lines of "There is a long history of Protestantism in Los Angeles", and also a framing sentence about how their was a rise in Pentacostal religion in the first two decades of the twentieth century. I'd also mention First Congregational in the list of important churches Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

agree on first congregational, and on need for topic sentence, and also on value of framing pentacostalism. i'd like something maybe a little stronger for the topic sentence, and will propose something if i can find a source; i'm thinking of something mentioning the crucial role l.a. played in influencing 20th century american protestantism. oh, and i almost forgot. how about putting the Metropolitan Community Church on the list; another international protestant phenomenon that started in l.a.? i still kind of think tony alamo is getting undue weight in there, but it's not a big issue with me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have stalled. I'm going to add Will's Protestant paragraph, with the suggestions Alf and I made. Alf, if you can find the reference for a stronger topic sentence, go ahead and add it. FYI, you had mentioned adding Biola; Biola and the Bible Institute of Los Angeles are one and the same. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, that looks good. thanks for getting this started again. I know about biola, i just spaced out and didn't notice it was in there. we'll need sources for at least some of this stuff this, but they're surely findable. i will try to get back to checking the rest of the unchecked sources soonest.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LAX data

regarding these two:

The main Los Angeles airport is Los Angeles International Airport (IATA: LAX, ICAO: KLAX). The sixth busiest commercial airport in the world and the third busiest in the United States, LAX handled over 61 million passengers and 2 million tons of cargo in 2006. The Theme Building is pictured here.<:ref>"LAX Volume of air traffic". Lawa.org. Archived from the original on April 14, 2008. Retrieved April 13, 2010.</ref> LAX is a hub for United Airlines<:ref>"United Airlines – Vacation Planning at United.com: Visit Los Angeles". United.com. Retrieved April 13, 2010.</ref>

the first source is archived, and the archive doesn't go enough layers down to support the statement. i think that a sentence like this is important, but that source can probably no longer be made to support it. the source for the sentence on united does in fact support it, but i'm putting it up here because i think the sentence should be dropped. it's possible that there's some context that i don't get that makes that fact important in this paragraph. if someone could fill that in, then i wouldn't mind keeping the sentence.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

More about the landmarks section

I do agree with an earlier comment that the landmarks section could use an improvement, but also some minor fact-checking to ensure all listed monuments are actually IN Los Angeles. For example, the current Randy's Donuts (which this page links to - Randy's Donuts) is in Inglewood, not Los Angeles, so shouldn't it be removed from the list?

ThatBajoranGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

 Done. excellent catch! i would have sworn it was in los angeles, because it's so close to the edge there, but the address proves it, since there's no 805 W. anything in l.a. that close to the beach except in venice, but i think they drop the w. there. also google maps and the thomas guide concur, so i took it out.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Full name

I see that it is mentioned in the body and is actually a redirect but shouldn't "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula" be mentioned right after where the name is in the intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not the full name of the city. That was the name of the village which was founded in the site hundreds of years ago. The full name of the city is "City of Los Angeles", as specified in the city charter. Apparently there is an urban myth about the old name of the village being the "true" name of the modern city.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this name change should be mentioned in the text then. Or possibly a link to a page that covers the original village(if it is an interesting topic). Uare (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There's really not that much to say about it, but it is covered in slightly more detail in History of Los Angeles.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the longer name should redirect to HofLA, then... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That'd be fine, though I doubt anyone types that name into a search box. There are 14 redirects from different spellings of that name![9]   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've got a hold of:

• Historical Society of Southern California,;Zamorano Club,;Dual Graphics, Inc.;Roswell Bookbinding, (2004). The founding documents of Los Angeles : a bilingual edition. Los Angeles Calif. ;Pasadena Calif.: Historical Society of Southern California ;;Zamorano Club of Los Angeles. ISBN 9780914421313. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It indicates that the city was founded in 1781 as La Reyna de los Angeles.   Will Beback  talk  12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)