Talk:Skid Row, Los Angeles

message: Early in the article "While no defined boundaries exist" then later in the article "According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the official boundaries are Third and Seventh Streets to the north and south and Alameda and Main Streets to the east and west, respectively."
66.116.62.178 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Skid Row area is commonly referred to as "the Nickel" because it is centered at San Julian and 5th - 5th Street being the "Nickel". The E/W boundaries are natural, formed on the East by the L.A. river, and on the West by Bunker Hill. In recent years, Skid Row has extended as far North as 2nd Street. The official "numbers" from the city claim 2000 residents, but the transient population passing through the area in any given month is several times greater.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: obvious contradiction 

message: This article doesn't seem to make any POV assertions, I don't think anyone can disagree with its admittedly sparse content, so I'm going to remove the non-neutral tag. 69.234.137.201 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This section is for the discussion of the proposed move of the Skid Row#Los Angeles section to the Skid Row, Los Angeles, California community article. 
----
With LA Times articles about the 'dumping' of the homeless and mentally ill in Skid Row by police departments and hospitals outside of the downtown area, and with the ACLA lawsuit against the LAPD for their tactics in Skid Row, among other new items, everything should be consolidated into the Skid Row community article.  BlankVerse 09:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: I haven't the time to update this article properly, but a well documented case of homeless dumping, and an article detailing past problems was in the LA Times Feb 9, 07 at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dumping9feb09,0,7452706.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel   Cheers! Chuchunezumi 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeless dumping on Skid Row

message: There appeared a documentary film about Skid Row, Los Angeles in 2007. Perhaps someone can insert this in the article. There is an official movie website and an article about the movie in the German Wikipedia. --Pilettes (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary film about Skid Row 

message: Can someone put a tag on this for style and grammar?  It needs work but I do not have the time, nor do I know the tag codes. 155.135.55.233 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  style/grammar 

message: I removed this: because (a) it's unsourced as to its connections with skid row; the Independent article doesn't mention it, (b) even if it were sourced as to its connection with skid row, e.g. a newspaper article said "A&F is giving clothes to people on skid row" its relevance to skid row would not be established.  In order for this to go in here I think we need a source that mentions this as part of a discussion about skid row rather than a source which mentions skid row as part of a discussion about this, otherwise it's going to be undue weight.  Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not encyclopedic. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abercrombie and Fitch 

message: Good idea, nice quote, but it is too long and might be taken down for a WP:Copyvio. Do you want to trim it by 60 % or should I? GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair use and I'll argue that case with anyone who wants to take it down as a copyright violation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No sense in quarreling, but it is too long and should be pithier anyway. That said, I suppose it will remain up for the next twenty years or so, since I have no intention of meddling with it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with you making it pithier if you think it'll improve the article, but I do have a problem with anyone trimming it on the grounds that it's a copyright violation.  It's not, but it's certainly possible that the article can be improved by trimming the quote.  It's just the degradation of the constitutional right to fair use that bothers me, not editorial revision.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyle quote 

message: The reference link to the homeless population doesn't make sense. And, there's no hyperlink. Why not use LAHSA's homeless numbers as they conduct a full count there every 2 years?
http://www.lahsa.org/homelessness_data_reports.asp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.61.56 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeless numbers 

message: I believe the demographics numbers were miscalculated and should be removed as untrustworthy.
The articles 'racial makeup' section totals 91.1%. I believe it should be 100% because it includes the "other" catchall. Also the "mixed" inclusion implies the categories are mutually exclusive.
The 'age' section totals 109%, which is clearly erroneous as the age brackets are mutually exclusive. xlynx (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics mistakes 

message: I removed the list, with the Edit summary of  "Original research. No sources. Not encyclopedic. WP is not a miscellaneous collection of information." Another editor restored it with the Edit summary of "Ezxcsuie em, these are BUS LINES." What do other editors think? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what other editors think, but I think that the bus lines which run through a neighborhood is pretty trivially accessible public information, hardly worth bothering about, but if you think it needs to be cited, then put a "CN" tag on it, don't delete it. BMK (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the initial section-blanking IP edit because it appeared to be drive-by vandalism. I don't have strong feelings about the section otherwise. It does seem at least as worthwhile as all the "Notable residents" sections in other neighborhood articles... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For my two cents, I think that the section should be removed as this is not encyclopedic information.Cloudspert (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not going to get rid of it. Too many public-transit fans that will simply put it back. Anyway, now it has a source. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of bus lines 

message: Anyone care to find and insert information about where the name "skid row" comes from? I'd take a stab at it, but I have to get back to work. It should definitely be part of the article.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 00:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BMK (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Was randomly directed to this wiki after reading some article about Skid Row, and when coming across the 2006 lawsuit section, saw this bit of content:
 "Chief Bratton said the case had slowed the police effort to fight crime and clean up Skid Row, and that when he was allowed to clean up skid row, real estate profited.[5]"
Naturally I was curious to see if Chief Bratton was indeed illiterate, so I checked out the source for the citation here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/444/444.F3d.1118.04-55324.html
I didn't read the whole thing, but word-searched through it and there is only one mention of "value", no mentions of "profit" (so its not a direct quote we know), but also no mentions of "real estate" mentioning property values or anything even alluding to them. Anyway, I don't know how to mark up someone's content that already has a citation, but its a bad citation?
I mean, CERTAINLY, property values are a major issue here, but Bratton didn't mention it in this article. Maybe he mentioned it somewhere else. Will leave this to the community, not editing it. I wanted to refine the wording, "real estate values increased", but now it sounds like he never even said that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 May 2016‎ (UTC)
:You are correct: there is no mention in the cited document that Bratton said that, and I can find no other source that quotes him as saying anything like that, so I removed the sentence. Bratton may well have held that opinion, but Bratton is not a stupid man and is likely to have said anything that so baldly equated the clean up of Skid Row with helping real estate values or real estate interests.  If I thought that was the case, I would have left it intact with a "citation needed" tag, but finding no source convinced me to simply delete it. BMK (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 lawsuit reference to Chief Bratton saying "real estate profited" [sic] not contained or alluded to in cited source  

message: Star Apartments is significant building on Skid Row, as its article makes abundantly clear. It's rather galling for another editor to repeatedly remove the link to it from this page, apparently because they want additional content about it to be included, but are not willing to add that themselves. There appears to be no policy basis for such removal - but plenty of policy against removing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually what's galling is that you apparently believe that the requirement for sourcing information in a Wikipedia article doesn't apply to you, and that when unsourced information you add is deleted you have every right to edit-war to restore it, instead of simply providing a source.  Don;t worry, I've done your job for you, since you couldn't be bothered. BMK (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The item was not removed - removed by you - as unsourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was unsourced, wasn't it Andy? And unsourced material can be removed at any time can't it, Andy?  It sounds as if the person who needs to bone up on their Wikipedia policies is not me, Andy, but you.  I read a book recently, it described a certain kind of person.  This type of person, according to the book, "systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people."  Are you that kind of person, Andy?  I certainly hope not, Andy, I certainly hope not. BMK (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Apartments 

message: The map for this article is close to worthless.  It is not a map showing the location of Skid Row, it is merely a map of LA.  The only way I was able to use it was to a) open it in a new tab, b) zoom in on it, c) go back and forth several times between the article's description of the parameters of Skid Row, until I was able to roughly see where it was, except that, zooming in on it, I could not see it all at once.  I considered deleting the map altogether, but decided to instead first post here, with the hope that someone might be able to find something better. Unschool 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very nearly worthless map 

message: The population of Skid Row listed changes within the article (8757 in the second paragraph, later 4757), and neither of these numbers can be found within the references listed. 
Also, the second paragraph lists the stable population of homeless people as between 9,200–15,000. This is confusing because this is larger than the total population, and therefore implies that the homeless population is not a part of the real population. I cannot find a clear number on the population of Skid Row, but considering this is the first number that appears when searching, it should be removed for now. Solomancer (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skid Row Population Inaccurate 

message: — Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS