Talk:Hancock Park, Los Angeles

Location

As a native of the west side, I never thought of La Cienega as being where the west side ends. The 310 area code ends at La Cienega, however, the independent municipalities of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Culver City all include territory east of La Cienega (although only a small portion of Culver City is east of La Cienega), and the Fairfax District also straddles La Cienega. As Culver City's eastern border is at Fairfax, and Beverly Hills' eastern border is between La Cienega and Crescent Heights, I'd consider Fairfax to be the eastern border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.122.71 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

comments about names of ethnic groups

The section entitled "Today" contrasts seems to contrast "white" with four ethnic groups: << "white majority, but the area is home to a small number of wealthy blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Orthodox Jews " >>. In order to avoid implying that members of these ethnic groups are not "white", I would suggest to change the phrase where it says, "Hancock Park still has a white majority", to something more like "Hancock Park still has a WASP majority". in some way. Unless I hear some good reasons not to, I intend [/recommend] to make this change. Mike Schwartz 20:11-:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (markup added later -- 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Orthodox Jews, like their more secular, assimilated counterparts who typify Los Angeles' Jewish community, are considered "white" by the US government and the state of California.. Latinos can be of any race. Asians, African-Americans, immigrants of African heritage, and biracial people are not considered "white" by the US government and the state of California Hancock Park's WASP population is large by the standards of L.A., particularly inner-city L.A., but they are not the majority in the neighborhood. Being familiar with the area, I'd consider Jews (both Orthodox and non-Orthodox), WASPs, and Asians to be the largest groups. Hancock Park certainly is part of L.A.'s traditional "kosher belt" along with neighboring Fairfax and the independent city of West Hollywood. Death2Objectivism 06:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. I marked-up (revised) my comments [from 4 June 2007]. I certainly would not want to imply that there is a WASP majority in a certain place, it there is not. On the other hand, I still think that WASP may be a better term to use, (than "white"), to contrast with the four ethnic groups mentioned in the article: << "[...] wealthy blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Orthodox Jews" >>. Not being familiar with the area, I would not necessarily want to focus on WASPs, by saying that there are a lot of them in Hancock Park, (by the standards of L.A., or otherwise). But in my opinion, the statement that mentions "white majority" should be changed in some way. Should we still try to preserve some of the intent of the original author? I guess so. Presumably, the intent was to provide the reader some information of a certain kind. But the article should avoid implying that those ethnic groups mentioned, are not "white". In my opinion, implying that they are not "white" is not even very interesting - in addition to the whole question of whether it would be true or not. So, I am thinking of something like this statement:

"Hancock Park still has a lot of WASPs, but the area is home to [...]"

as a substitute for the statement currently in the article:

"Hancock Park still has a white majority, but the area is home to [...]"

(how does that sound?) Mike Schwartz 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that the largest group in Hancock Park would be Jewish whites, when one combines the more typical Los Angeles assimilated Jews with their Orthodox counterparts. Death2Objectivism 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Mike Schwartz back again, and it is "03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)" and no response yet, so I am going ahead with the edit to the article. I guess It can always be reverted if someone had something to say, and was in a coma or something. Also, you can still respond here on the talk page, (this section isn't being archived yet) (as far as I know); but meanwhile, I am changing the article to contrast WASPs with the 4 "other" ethnic groups listed, instead of contrasting 'white'. See the history (diff listing) of the main article for the exact [tiny] wording change. Mike Schwartz 03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kathy Bates

Does anyone else have trouble discerning what the writer means in the "Kathy Bates" section? Does Kathy Bates live on the Country Club grounds? Bad grammar I think and difficult to follow logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DotsyMe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Interested editors can also comment at Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

3rd Street elementary handbook in Korean

See: http://www.thirdstreetschool.com/uploads/7/5/9/0/7590677/parent_handbook_korean_sep6_2011.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Affluent, highly educated, built around a golf club.

This diff was boldly made with the Editorial Comment "Minor cleanup. Affluence is relative, there are lower income apartments in the area as well. The justification that the entire Hancock Park neighborhood is affluent is inaccurate." I reversed the change on the grounds that the lede simply presages what the article says later, i.e. that Hancock Park's "median yearly household income in 2008 dollars was $85,277, a relatively high figure for Los Angeles, and a high percentage of households earned $125,000 or more" and that "56.2% of those aged aged 25 and older [had] . . . earned a four-year degree. The percentage of residents with a master's degree was high for the county." The article also states that "The neighborhood surrounds the grounds of the Wilshire Country Club." I don't mind modifying the lede to "mostly affluent" or "relatively high-income" if that is acceptable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External link

I deleted this external link as inappropriate per WP:ELNO:

• Comments about living in Hancock Park

My deletion was reverted, so I am bringing it here per WP:BRD. IMO this link should go. It is not to a reliable or informational site - merely to a string of random comments from random, anonymous people expressing their feelings about the neighborhood. More suitable for social media than for an encyclopedia. Other opinions? --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not wedded to this, but the letters were vetted by the L.A. Times, so it would seem to be just fine to use here. Whatever the consensus agrees on is OK by me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing to suggest that these were "letters" "vetted" by the LA Times. This is just a say-whatever-you-like, anonymous online comment section, attached to the LA Times neighborhood listing for Hancock Park. It attracted a grand total of nine comments over a year and a half, one of which was nothing more than a nasty swipe at one of the other comment writers. There is nothing here worth linking to. On the other hand, it might be worthwhile to post a link to the actual LAT profile of the neighborhood (to which this comments section attaches) - it can be found at http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/hancock-park/ . --MelanieN (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am persuaded and now have no objection to the removal of that link. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And meanwhile I persuaded myself to replace it with the neighborhood profile link. Isn't discussion wonderful? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hancock Park, Los Angeles. 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/20100423114912/http://www.wshphs.org/windsor.html to http://www.wshphs.org/windsor.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

British Consul-General Residence

The paragraph describing the residence of the British Consul-General currently contains this sentence: "The residence is at the Hancock Park address of 450 S. June St., Los Angeles, CA 90004, and backs the Wilshire Country Club." I believe this description actually conflates two different addresses. 450 South June St, Los Angeles, CA 90020, appears to be the actual Consul-General residence, as its exterior (see, for example, Google Maps) matches the photos in this LA Times story (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/07/prince-william-kate-los-angeles-british-consul-generals-residence.html) and those on the site of architect Ronald Chang, who oversaw the renovations of the Consul-General residence (https://www.ronaldchang.org/blank). 450 S. June St. does not back up to the Wilshire Country Club. The other address, 450 North June St., Los Angeles, CA 90004, is also in Hancock Park, but is built in an entirely different architectural style, closer to Tudor Revival than the Spanish Colonial Revival of the home identified as Consul-General residence in those other sources. This second house, 450 N. June St., is the one that actually backs up to the Wilshire Country Club.

Given this information, I'm going to revise the sentence to identify 450 S. June St, Los Angeles, CA 90020 (note the corrected zip code) as the actual address of the Consul-General residence, and I will remove the reference to the Wilshire Country Club. I'm also going to eliminate the UK.gov link (https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-consulate-general-los-angeles), as it now directs to a page that gives no information about the residence (presumably the result of an update to the site itself). I could not find an archived version of this page from 2011.

Please feel free to correct these adjustments if you have any additional information.SquidPebblePoliceman (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in improving this article, but be sure to read WP:Original research. You are doing fine if you do find some good WP:Reliable sources for any changes you make. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)