Talk:San Gabriel, California

California: Southern California Mid‑importance

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

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Source needed for Prop 13 claim

I removed this sentence from the article: (talking about the 99 Ranch Market shopping center) "The awe-inspiring shopping center - the center piece for new "Chinatown" of sorts - was part a result of the Proposition 13 from California, which lowered the property tax statewide and then had the effect on the losing of potential city revenue, and hence the development of this massive mall was approved." While the idea that a shopping center was approved because of prop 13 seems plausible, I feel that it needs some kind of source before it should be in the article. Something like local newspaper reports making that claim, or a study from the city... JesseW 08:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"In San Gabriel, a Redefined Chinatown Springs from Success" Los Angeles Times, Sept. 20, 1997

I restored the sentence in the article. Of course, you'll have find some way to access it or go to a library to access microfiche archives (I will not put up it here or e-mail to you for free). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.194.166.235 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! I'll add it to the article. JesseW 07:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dumplings

I see that people keep on trying to edit "Mainland Chinese noodles and dumpling restaurants". Immigrants from Hong Kong and Vietnam seldomly open those types of restaurants since they are Shanghainese cuisine and Shanghai is in Mainland China. Such restaurants tend to be open by Mainland Chinese or 49er Taiwanese immigrants. Likewise, Hong Kong-style cafes (serving chicken steak, ox tongue with pasta, hot milk tea) are owned and patronized by (you've guessed it) Hong Kong immigrants but seldomly by Taiwanese. In San Gabriel, Taiwanese immigrants run the upscale businesses and Chinese Vietnamese immigrants own the utilitarian ones. I could go on with more examples, but I don't have the inclination at the moment. Thus the distinctions needs to be made.

This article attempts to mention the great diversity of Chinese diaspora in San Gabriel, especially when compared to the more Hong Kong-centric Vancouver area or Mainland Chinese-dominated New York City area.

San Gabriel Square

It looks like the San Gabriel Square is really showing its age. It's still popular and the surrounding traffic is painful, but the center getting rather musty.

Recent Los Angeles Times article

It seems that a story about San Gabriel that appeared in Los Angeles Times took some elements from this Wikipedia article. Check the edit history and compare that with the article that appeared on March 31. It makes me question whether journalists really do their homework or not and whether the media really knows what it's talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sangabriel31mar31,1,6618132.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

Demographics

The racial makeup of the city was 4.87% White, 1.06% African American, 0.23% Native American, 38.71% Asian (principally Chinese), 0.10% Pacific Islander, 12.36% from other races, and 3.34% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 55.21% of the population.

What happened? All the Asians moved away, or what? Because the 2000 demographics said 49% Asians, I expected there'd be more six years later... Why sigh, cutie pie? 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics and unsourced statements in Asian American population section

This article's demographic information seems to be completely wrong. As the previous comment notes, the totals don't even add up to 100 percent. I am correcting the demographics per Census 2000 figures.

Also, all of the claims made about higher income Taiwanese Chinese vs. lower income mainland or overseas Chinese do not cite sources and are therefore unsubstantiated conjectures. That sort of information is not appropriate for an article such as this. I will mark that section as such. Arturoramos 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this section for now until there are better NPOV references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Note that the incorrect demographics figures were a result of vandalism. Now reverted and corrected

00:06, 4 November 2006 71.104.43.92 (Talk) (→Demographics)

Arturoramos 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the demographics still don't add up.. 33 + 48 + 30 = 111. One of these groups is lying, I think someone vandalized the percentage of Whites in the past... ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill^/^lol 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

130%??

The demographics still don't add up as of April 20, 2007. The racial makeup of the city was 33.40% White, 1.06% African American, 0.83% Native American, 48.91% Asian (principally Chinese), 0.10% Pacific Islander, 12.36% from other races, and 3.34% from two or more races. Those identifying as Hispanic or Latino (of any race) were 30.71% of the population. This adds up to 130.71%. The white percentage seems to be the most off, but who knows what the real numbers are. (Viewport 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hispanics are usually included in the count of caucasians,that is why the disparity. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seal san gabriel ca.png

Image:Seal san gabriel ca.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added added a specific fair use rationale for use of image, Image:Seal san gabriel ca.png, on San Gabriel, California article --AlexTheMartian | Talk 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on San Gabriel, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics from 2010 census still add up to over 100%

As of May 2018, the percentages still add up to around 137% for the 2010 census. Whoever wrote the original article misused the percentages from their source, the 2010 census. This is the 2010 census data:

25.37% Whites (10,076/39,718)

1% African-American (388/39718)

60.7% Asian (24,091/39/718)

0.5% American Indian and Alaskan Native (220/39718)

0.1% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (43/39,718)

9.5% Other (3,762/39,718)

2.9% Identified 2 or more (1,138/39,718)

When added together, adds up to 100.7 (I rounded a bit)

The main problem seems to be that OP included the "Hispanic or Latino" and "Non Hispanic or Latino" sections from the census data, which is shown like it's separate from the rest of the data. The data that does add up to 100 doesn't include "Hispanic or Latino". I'm confused at how the census shows the data. It looks like it's showing the racial percentages for everything but Hispanic or Latino, and then says that 10,189 of the residents are Hispanic or Latino and 29,529 are not, regardless of what the next data table says. This page also lists Hispanic or Latino as a separate category. Am I missing something really obvious? Should the percentages be from the His. or Lat. section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.107.254 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]