Talk:Crenshaw, Los Angeles

message: This needs to be changed. When people in L.A. speak of "Crenshaw", they are referring to the Boulevard, and not the community. When people speak of the community, they will say "Crenshaw District". Therefore, it is incorrect to say James Hahn or Ice Cube are "from Crenshaw", when it is a street and a high school, and not a city or neighborhood. (RTistic (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crenshaw" versus "Crenshaw District" 

message: As it stands now, the article gives Vernon Ave as the northern boundary of Crenshaw.  I don't think that's right.  I've always thought anything south of the 10 and west of Jefferson Park and east of Culver City was also part of Crenshaw.  If you look at the Jefferson Park article, it describes Crenshaw as being to the west of Jefferson Park.
The Baldwin Hills article says the area north of Baldwin Village is Mid-City, Los angeles, California but, the mid-city article says that Crenshaw is south of Mid-City.
Why doesn't the city of Los Angeles just declare some official boundaries?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^I agree with this 100%. It makes no sense saying that the border is Vernon, seeing that the shopping district, mall, Church, and all else is up to 2 or 3 miles north of Vernon. This needs to be fixed. (RTistic (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries of Crenshaw 

message: Does anyone really think a picture of the freeway exit ramp is the most representative image of Crenshaw there is? I'm not from Crenshaw, but I think this needs to be fixed. Add a picture of some community gathering point, or some homes, or a street, or something! Not an offramp from a freeway that helped demolish part of the city.
Agree, and perhaps we can find a picture that doesn't look like it came from Dark Shadows :)
This photo absolutely needs to change.  I'm also not from Crenshaw, but this photo doesn't show anything about the neighborhood and doesn't add to the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.51.229 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: There seems to be a problem with the statistics of population in this article. they add up to 117.1%
Dangaz 06:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a crowded area. ;) But seriously... "Hispanic" is not a race so it overlaps with the others. I'm not sure what the source for these statistics is so we can't double check them. -Will Beback · † · 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is primarily because in statsical sense (e.g. the U.S. Census Bureau), "Hispanic" could be of any race. --Moreau36 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interested editors can also comment at Talk:Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 03:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The fact that there is a dispute over whether the "Crenshaw District" is the more normal usage (I think it is) should not mean we remove this helpful information which is used by the Los Angeles Times to identify this area. So I put it all back. I hope you understand that this is only for information, and I do not care to take sides in this dispute. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw District 

message: : I have removed the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw map and the "also see: Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" suggestion from the top of the Crenshaw page.  I have outlined a history of one user and - despite consensus - his insistence that this page reflect the the much larger area of the combined neighhorhoods of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw. 
: (1) BeenAroundAWhile started a merger discussion to combine the two distinct neighborhoods of Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw into the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw page that BeenAround had recently created.   The response was a resounding “No”.
: (2)  Four months later, BeenAround overruled consensus that came out of the merger discussion, deleted the Crenshaw page, and redirected it to Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw   The re-direct was quickly reverted.  
: (3)  The following month, BeenAround then went over to the Baldwin Hills page, and again, despite consensus from the merger discussion, deleted and re-directed the Baldwin Hills page to Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw.  Again, the re-direct was quickly reverted.
: (4) Despite it being made clear that these two distinct neighborhoods should remain separate – and not combined into one – BeenAround then added the map from the much larger Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw area to Crenshaw  The map was removed with the notation that it does not represent this neighborhood.
: (5)  BeenAround added “also see Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw”  at the top of the the Crenshaw page  .  
: (6) BeenAround re-installed the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw map and it’s written boundaries to the Crenshaw page, despite the fact that the map and boundaries do not represent the Crenshaw neighborhood. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crenshaw is not the same as Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw 

message: User:Phatblackmama,User:BeenAroundAWhile - I understand that there is some disagreement about what should be the scope of this article or the subject of this article.  I suggest that each editor state, in one paragraph, what they think is at issue or should be changed or left the same in this article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the sources say is just what we should follow. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Issue 

message: — Assignment last updated by JosephB724 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 TR Both Classes