Talk:San Gabriel, California

message: 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)
thread_title: Demographics

message: 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Also, all of the claims made about higher income Taiwanese Chinese vs. lower income mainland or overseas Chinese do not cite sources and are therefore unsubstantiated conjectures.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)
replies: text: I have removed this section for now until there are better NPOV references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics and unsourced statements in Asian American population section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hispanics are usually included in the count of caucasians,that is why the disparity. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hispanics are usually included in the count of caucasians,that is why the disparity. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 130%??

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Seal san gabriel ca.png

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103002921/http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc to http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503184953/http://www.sangabrielcity.com/pointsofinterest/valley.shtml to http://www.sangabrielcity.com/pointsofinterest/valley.shtml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120722024632/http://www.clairbourn.org/overview.php to http://www.clairbourn.org/overview.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics from 2010 census still add up to over 100%