Talk:Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley/Archive 1

Name change/move to Chinese commercial districts in Southern California
right in the lede the author of the article says "[these] are not really Chinatowns", and so the title is completely inappropriate; the growing use - in Wikipedia - of referring to Chinese commercialsettlement districts in North America is utterly and totally original research and is not borne out by standard English usage re "Chinatown". This article should either be deleted retitled either Chinese commercial districts in Southern California or Chinese commercial and settlement areas in Southern California.Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the worst articles in WP
This is really a poor article. It has no sources, so no way to check the facts. And people keep adding to it, still without sources. How depressing! Sincerely, in sorrow, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah i agree...nothing is supported. should really clean it up or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.55.171 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
"
 * WP:LOCALFAME summarizes my reasoning perfectly. A small, small fraction of the US, not to mention the world, live there. Just because it may be important to a dozen people in the area does not mean it is notable. I grew up in the Los Angeles area and, frankly, don't see this as an important or notable subject.
 * WP:EFFORT - the wall of text is of no use when 99% of it is original research by, say, a supermarket cashier living in Pasadena.
 * I doubt it matters if an editor is an admin or not. There are also several other editors suggesting that the article be either deleted or completely rewritten due to it not complying with any of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Just about all of the article is original research and no amount of looking for sources will prove the points in the article; there is a reason why it's called original research. The very intro of the article implies it: "these communities are not really called "Chinatown" by the Chinese community there". If the Chinese community itself doesn't even call these areas Chinatowns, it makes no sense to have a 5-page long article on a concept that, in reality, doesn't exist. If the content of this article is merged into Chinatown, Los Angeles, there's no doubt that the text would be splattered with tags and eventually be removed per WP:OR. The only factual, sourceable content would probably amount to a few sentences, the rest WP:SYNTH-ed to reach varying made-up conclusions. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you revert again you will be violating the 3RR rule. You apparently have not been to this area lately, which is now 50 to 60% Asian, i.e. many thousands of people.  You don't get to arbitrarily remove an article, especially one that  is being worked on and agreed on by two respected editors. I am in the process of merging what is salvageable  to rewritng the main article, which is quite obvious, so your edit is really quite egregious and shows lack of Good Faith and Civility.

You have no proof it is original research and anything I merge add will be resourced. See Preserve and have a little Good Faith that I am complying with Wikipedia guidelines. Leave the darn article alone until I am finished with it! I am in contact with administration and will file an ANI if this article is vandalized any further.DocOfSoc (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You had no right to take content from my user page and publish it here. Your responses should have remained on my talk page and had the courtesy to *Discuss* not *delete.* I am simply appalled by your audacity.DocOfSoc (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Again no discussion. I am using this article for reference until I complete the section in the L.A. Article. You may want to read it because now two of you have shown you have absolutely no idea what a suburban Chinatown is. Grays remarks above are fallacious hyperbole and again show an appalling lack of Good Faith Again, please leave article until I am finished and they you may delete all you want. You are required to save the talk page according Wiki rules with which you may or may not be familiar. I am now going to admin.DocOfSoc (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Original research is origianl research, and this is obviously original research; that citations used here and on the Monterey Park article are dominantly from wiki-clones like reference.com, famouschinexe.com, etc etc only underscores this. I see you tried to convert this into a redirect, using that command incorrectly; in fact the article should not even b e a redirect since it says clearly in the lede there is only one Chinatown in Southern Cailfornia; that the others "are not called Chiantowns means one very simple thing - THEY ARE NOT CHINATOWNS''.  Wikipedia should not serve as a directory for Chinese commercial areas, and that's waht this basically is.  It's a prime candidate for outright deletion, for original research, lack of proper citations, confabulous content, directory-type information and WP:Undue weight.Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, I have stayed in the LA area for a large portion of my life until moving recently, so your presumption that I moved out long ago is false. In fact, I'm Asian myself. There is nothing salvageable about this article. The text you have merged is easily considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and should be removed; there is no question about it. Apart from that, it appears you have an ownership issue with the article. Other editors have the right to change/redirect/open a deletion discussion on the article as they see fit. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Living in a "Chinatown"
Reminder to Grayshi of Bold, revert, discuss and Edit war. This was boldness; this was the reversion to the status quo ante; but discussion is lacking. IEditing policy is one of our most-overlooked official policies. User talk:Grayshi, reminder xem of the BRD cycle, and am asking why the "D" part appears to be missing. Talking to other editors &mdash; in this case directly &mdash; is the first step in any dispute resolution. I have attempted to sort out the problem by addressing the underlying issue in dispute. So now you got your friend Snookums or whatever. Just please stop and let me finish. Then you may do what drives you to delete this article besides lack of comprehension. I will not revert at this time because of 3RR. See you in ANI Thank you. DocOfSoc (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're way out of line, DocOfSoc, and I'm amused; your little derision towards me ("snookums", which is both cheap and old-hat) constitutes both "bad faith" as well as "personal attack", so stop quoting regs you don't fully understand in defence of an article that shouldn't even exist. As for being "friend" to your apparent opponent, I've never seen Grayshi's name before, nor yours, though I have watched this page bloat and conflate beyond any reasonable purpose and, like Monterey Park, using all kinds of not-acceptable citations.  Have fun at ANI, which is a side issue.  Where this belongs, clearly, is in AfD.....This article is bunk and defies various wikipedia content guidelinesSkookum1 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Definition

Chinatown |ˈ ch īnəˌtoun| noun a district of any non-Chinese town, esp. a city or seaport, in which the population is predominantly of Chinese origin.


 * Gee, shucks, last time I checked Snookums was a term of endearment. Sorry if you are offended I couldn't remember your "Name" ATM. All I asked was to leave the article as is so I could use it for reference, why is that so difficult? You could wait a couple days? See definition of "Chinatown"  above. Yes most of the article is useless but it gave me a starting point. I only found the article yesterday and in WIKI, "there are no time limits."  I am not the one guilty of Bad Faith or personal attacks. "Old Hat" Sure why not?
 * See Puck" Midsummer's Night dream"DocOfSoc (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Using a term of endearment on a stranger in a patronizing manner is discourteous, especially when it is a "take" on their chosen username. But rest assured, I'm Skookum1 and I don't have feelings.  I have launched an AfD against this page, and I trust your comments above and WP:Own behaviour over this article will earn you a worthy discussion in WP:ANI.  And whatever book you've pulled that definition from, you're conflating that definition with what is clearly Original Research; and you've also both mocked and reverted another editor here, and also used REDIRECT incorrectly.  But redirect isn't called for here, it's deletion pure and simple.  The other issue is your behaviour...Skookum1 (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the rush?
This article has been here since 2005 which is when it was first written. Why the rush to delete when an editor, Doc #2 who is an editor is good standing, asked to wait a couple of days? I'm sorry but I don't understand the hard feeling unless it's because of this note from an IP. This IP is a banned sockpuppet trying to cause trouble. Please ignore her. Look at Doc #2's contributions and you will see that she is a good article writer who does source everything. Please extend some good faith towards her. If you are angry about the revert of the redirect, then be angry with me because I'm the one who reverted it so that she could work on the article. Thank you in advance for your kind patience, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because something has existed since 2005 and slipped under the radar all that time is no reason at all for it to continue to exist. Similarly if "Doc" wants to "use it" to "improve" another article (how you do that by adding original research I'm not certain), there's a function on any computer that involves copy-paste and a simple text editor to save it into.  There is only one Chinatown in Southern California, not five, and it's stated clearly that none of these other areas with heavy Chinese commercial/residential areas are called Chinatown.  Only one academic has done so, and only in a pardigmatic snese, and only in reference to one of these.  As noted I suspect there may have been historical and actual Chinatowns in Southern California and if so then articles on them should be written.   But what this article constitutes at present is nothing but an original-research extenuation on the meaning (not name) of "Chinatown", using wiki-clone citations of itself as references (a similar problem is rife on the Monterey Park article).  Between a non-standard usage of "Chinatown", original research, wiki-clone sources, and directory-type content, that far outweighs any grandfather clause that says "this has existed since 2005, so why the rush?".  How many other articles with more citations and indeed more notability and more relevance have been deleted since 2005?  Just because this one escaped notice/dispute until now is no reason to permit its contiued existence.Skookum1 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

then the poorer Vietnamese Chinese (also called Hoa) refugees came after the anti-Chinese persecution by the communist government of Vietnam. The 1990s and 2000s has experienced the acceleration of Mainland Chinese immigration into the community, corresponding to the economic rise in People’s Republic of China. The population include the growing number of American-born Chinese children of these post-1970s immigrants.

Rowland Heights etc
Once again, you continue to expand this article about Chinese business areas without providing validation for there being a common use of "Chinatown" to refer to them - this edit is typical. Lots of cited information expanding descriptions of Chinese populations/business, but NONE to prove that ANYONE refers to Rowland Heights or Hacienda Heights as "Chinatown". You're taking one vague analogy about Monterey Park being "the first suburban Chinatown" and using it as a license to label any place with Chinese stores as if it were "Chinatown".....Skookum1 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Chinatown" is a sociological term that is reserved for areas of cities where Chinese culture trumps American culture. In other words: it's like having a little China within an American city; it's a place where Chinese is the first language and culture, not an area of a city that has Asian businesses. The following reference is definitive regarding what a Chinatown really is and should be referred to over something found online out of desperation simply to make a point and push an agenda: Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave By Min Zhou - 1992, Temple University Press. **Maven of Media (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add your comments to the AfD....Skookum1 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I'm having the most trouble with as far as calling everything and sundry with an Asian population "Chinatown": calling something a "Chinatown" that isn't established and recognized by the Chinese community at large as a Chinatown is basically a White thing to do. As someone of color, I'm going to assume that those who are insisting the articles on Chinatowns that are in dispute should remain are probably White. Am I correct? If so, then it's understandable that they are arguing something they simply don't understand from an personal ethnic as well as multicultural standpoint. Calling an portion of a metropolitan area "Chinatown" just because it has a concentration of Asian businesses is not only sociologically incorrect, it's racially insensitive and ultimately biased. If the Chinese and the Chamber of Commerce in the areas in question don't officially call it "Chinatown", then it is NOT a Chinatown, plain and simple. For Whites to insist something is a Chinatown when it officially is not is presumptive and arrogant as well as crossing a line multiculturally. It only further demonstrates the exercise of White power and privilege in this country over those of color and a different culture. Essentially what's being said here by those who want to keep the "Chinatown" label is "we know better". Believe me, you don't. **Maven of Media (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm white, not sure about DocOfSoc, but Grayshi is Asian; and Grayshi and I are opposed to the usage of Chinatown; which, yes, is originally an external/white designation but as per http://www.chinatownology.com and other sites the idea of a Chinatown is core to North American Chinese culture with strong sentimental attachments to same....but as you note, if citizens of a place, including Chinese citizens, don't call their place "Chinatown" then Wikipedia shouldn't label it as such. it's not just a problem with this article, either (and there are similar problems on the Koreatown article, though there it's Koreans who want to call anywhere that has Korean stores a Koreatown).  On the AfD page, Will Beback posted the Monterey Park city council's website's Chinese-language page, as if that were proof that Monterey Park is a Chinatown; but taht site only mentions Chinatown six times, all to do with the Chinatown Cultural Centre in Chinatown, Los Angeles....extending the presence of Chinese councillors and a Chinese-language website as "proof" that it's a Chinatown......well, that's plainly SYNTH.  And he actually disputed the validity of the contents of Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia, even though they're all places that had actual Chinatowns; there's some in BC that don't have articles yet which were Chinese-majority towns, but didn't have Chinatowns (e.g. Antler Creek, Richfield)....point is there's a lot of judging what's valid and waht's not based on sloppy logic and even sloppier application of definitions.... Anyway, don't blame it on white people for the troubles with this series of articles, I don't think they're the problem.....(and I'm one trying to clean it up, obviously).Skookum1 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rosemead
"The Chinese immigrant presence has now expanded into the city of Rosemead, albeit on a smaller scale and predominantly Vietnamese," - huh? Are the Vietnamese people considered Chinese? Franamax (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Read
Read entire citation please before you make erroneous claims about sources. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * please read - in detail - WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:VS and stop putting in material that has nothing to do with the topic; you're taking "lifting of restrictions" + "settlement in San Gabriel Valley" and combining them to mean "lifting of restrictions was the cause/enabler of settlement in the San Garbiel Valley. and you CONTINUE to equate "concentration of Chinese commerce/population" = "Chinatown" as if that were a valid equation, which it's not.  Articles which use the term figuratively, especially if they're only from food and travelogue columns, are NOT reliable sources and do NOT mean that the term is commonplace; it's figurative only, yet you persist in using it in a nominal/primary-subeject sense.23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really want to continue spending your time writing about this stuff, then start Chinese commercial districts and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley and see how that survives WP:Undue and WP:Notability.Skookum1 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy
It'd be best to track down the Saito book, if it contains this assertion, but his source is sufficient if attributed.  Will Beback   talk    22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Valley has the highest concentration of Asians in the state. According to author Leland Saito, the region has the largest Chinese economy outside China.
 * The San Gabriel Valley was just a baby in 1955 Ivy Dai, Jason Kosareff, Karen Rubin. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. West Covina, Calif.: Mar 21, 2005.
 * Rank hyperbole. Larger than Singapore's?  Larger than Taiwan's? (OK, so Taiwan's technically China; but in some ways of looking at it others would say so is Singapore...).  Larger than Canada's?? - I very much doubt it.  And what's a "Chinese economy" anyway?  Are they using yuan?  The above quote still is not relevant at all to the subject of the title, which is Chinatowns.  Are Vientamese and Koreans and Cambodians Chinese??Skookum1 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although a rather belligerent comment, this touches on an issue I think all involved here need to carefully consider. What does it mean when you say "Chinatown"? Do you mean "where all them yella folk live"? Under that definition, you can safely refer to anywhere there are East Asians, regardless of actual ethnicity or nationality. However that term is reserved for the traditional/historical "Chinatown"s where "you can't tell them apart" from the perspective of people of European origin. I haven't yet seen a source bubble up here that says that any random East Asian concentration is called a "Chinatown" in the modern sense, which presumably takes into account actual nationality and ethnicity. What particular definition is being pursued here, and/or why am I not able to read in this article the definitions? I rather doubt that if I walked up to a Lao or Hmong or Viet person and said "hey I just said on Wikipedia that you are a Chinese ethnic enclave" that they would thank me and actually mean it. Isn't there a better way of defining what exactly is being talked about? Franamax (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People aren't enclaves, so I imagine the person would give you a strange look.   Will Beback    talk    21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good quibble, but you don't address my point. If 250 Laotian immigrants live somewhere, is that a "Chinese ethnic enclave"? If it's 250 Viet and 255 Han Chinese, is it a "505 strong Chinese ethnic enclave"? If it's 3 Thai restaurants and one Szechuan, is it a "Chinese commercial concentration"? The answer of course is, "what do the sources say?", but what if the sources are silent or ethnic foodie/tourism blogs? Franamax (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is that an "ethnic enclave" is a place called an ethnic enclave by reliable sources. If sources say that X is an ethic enclave, then it's not for us to second-guess those sources and decide that they're wrong. It's not up to us to create a definition of a term and then decide which places meet that definition. That's WP:OR.   Will Beback    talk    00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My tone is due to the query being on the one hand in defiance of the deciding admin's "content objections are valid" by pursuing citations for material which does not have to do with the subject matter of the title, but the subject matter of the "proposed extended title". And it seems that one author saying something clearly, well, specious, is "sufficient" for a citation....Skookum1 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I don't know exactly what Saito means. But it is an assertion in a reliable source that's relevant to this article. If there are sources with other views we can include those too.   Will Beback    talk    21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, we can get the book and verify that a claim has been made, but can we ascertain that the claim is verifiably true? For instance, is it supported by graphs and charts from reliable sources or is it just a bald claim? It seems to me that considering UNDUE and PEACOCK, the simple instance of the words may be ineligible for inclusion. Now if we could say "based on 2004 data from the OECD[ref], Saito claims the Valley has...[ref]" there would be a little more for the reader to decide if the claim is true. Franamax (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My original suggestion was that we present the material with attribution if we can't find the original source. It may have been a direct remark to the reporter. As a general principle, we don't need to verify sources if they meet the standards for reliability (and if they didn't our verification wouldn't help anyway). I suspect that he is not including nation states like Singapore or Taiwan.   Will Beback    talk    08:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We're NOT here to "summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view" if that "neutral point of view" includes "allowing the inclusion of original research and synthesis (and, all too often, spam). NPOV is not a flag that should be flown to defend OR and SYNTH.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The NPOV issue is neither here nor there. "Verifiability" is the main issue. If the sources have engaged in original research or synthesized new ideas then that's fine and doesn't violate Wikipedia rules. If we report what those reliable sources say then we are not engaging in OR or SYNTH.   Will Beback    talk    08:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the SGV is not "a Chinatown", so reinforcing text that shouldn't be in the article 'because it's not on topic" with reliable sources is not what this article needs; if those reliable sources and extra text are needed anywhere, it's not somewhere where they back up a SOAP/OR agenda of re-inventing a word's main use by pointing to isolated occurences of it in a figurative sense.  BTW on the Brooklyn Chinatown page history you'll find today someone taking away the claim that that New York is the largest concentration of Chinese etc etc (that wording was rightfully adjusted by a responsible editor), but for a while now the "my Chinatown is bigger than your Chinatown" and "Chinatown is anywhere we say it is" agendas have been running amuck, and affecting too many pages.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[undent] So here is an example of another non-reliable source making the NY-is-bigger claim (without mentioning the SGV). In any case this article isn't Concentrations of Chinese people in the United States, it's about Chinatowns. Keeping the two distinct should be the point here, not retrenching the one at expense of the other.Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the Chinatowns issue here. This concerns the economic activity in the SGV. However I'd agree that that website is not a good source.     Will Beback    talk    08:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "economic activity in the SGV" is not on-topic, you're addressing the "meta-Chinatown" concept ("Chinese business=Chinatown") by reinforcing that content, which doesn't belong in the article in the first place (especially because it's, well, a boast - and NYC makes the same boast...among other places no doubt).Skookum1 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you were looking for Chinese economic activity and settlement in the San Gabriel Valley? Because that's where that content belongs.Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this article should be moved to something like "Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley". That's a notable topic which has been written about often, and it could handle some of the Chinese-related topics that go beyond individual cities. But that's a separate thread.   Will Beback    talk    10:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They are little Chinatowns, no difference than other areas that are not officially designated. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that they are not called Chinatowns, do not have that name, and a Chinatown is a named place. It's not just a collection of Chinese stores.  There's clearly an effort by modern "Chinatown promoters" to re-apply the word to new-era Chinese enclaves, i.e. to create those enclaves by branding - by re-inventing the word.  But it's still a neologism, and nowhere near "most common use" of the term "Chinatown".  A Chinese ethnic enclave is not a Chinatown, nor (often enough) called Chinatown; often very specifically not (as with Golden Village in Richmond, BC).Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "Chinese enclave"

 * It is a refrain heard constantly among other newcomer families in the suburban communities of Rosemead, Monterey Park, Alhambra and San Gabriel, where one of the nation's largest enclaves of ethnic Chinese refugees from Vietnam has taken root.
 * Family Elders Cling to Old Ways as Young Look to New Series: ASIAN IMPACT: Third of four parts.; MARK ARAX. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 16, 1987. pg. 1
 * Zhao is just one of several qi gong practitioners who hold court in the San Gabriel Valley, home to Los Angeles County's largest concentration of Chinese-Americans-many of them immigrants who have believed in qi gong's healing powers since childhood. But increasingly, qi gong's popularity is spreading beyond Chinese enclaves to upper-middle-class neighborhoods of the Westside, Orange County and San Diego.
 * Ancient Practice Is Latest Wave in Healing Chinese Qi Gong Masters Channel Internal Energy for Good Health, and Healthy Profits; IRENE CHANG. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 21, 1991. pg. 1
 * It appears that these newcomers deliberately bypassed the traditional Chinese enclaves in Los Angeles County, including Monterey Park, for the anonymity of Orange County suburbia. [..] The Chinese immigrants who live in Monterey Park and in the other enclaves of the San Gabriel Valley "don't have to-or want to-venture outside the Chinatowns," said Celia Young, a Laguna Niguel-based consultant in Asian-American relations. "They have reconstructed a Chinese society right there. ..."
 * THE CHINESE OF ORANGE COUNTY PARENTS WANT TO PRESERVE HERITA, THEIR CHILDREN WANT FAST TRACK TO ASSIMILATION Series: HERITAGE: First in an occasional series of stories on Orange County's diverse ethnic groups.; HERMAN WONG. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 29, 1989. pg. 1
 * These ties have created a clandestine corridor linking the villages of Fujian, the shores of Mexico and Central America, and suburban safehouses in the heavily Chinese enclaves of the San Gabriel Valley, where Asian organized crime has become entrenched. 
 * Smugglers Use Mexico as Gateway for Chinese Immigration: The increasing influx of illegal immigrants is largely because of an alliance between Latin American and Asian crime syndicates, INS authorities say.; SEBASTIAN ROTELLA, LEE ROMNEY. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 21, 1993. pg. 3
 * While Southern California languishes in recession, Chinese neighborhoods across the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County are thriving. Small Chinese American-owned businesses are creating jobs, in many cases reaching out from their ethnic enclaves to mainstream markets. Even historic Chinatown in Downtown Los Angeles, once left moribund by a flight to the suburbs, is being resuscitated by a new population of ethnic Chinese from Vietnam.
 * COLUMN ONE Breathing Life Into Southland From mainland millionaires to grad students, a `new wave' of Chinese immigrants is invigorating the economy. Series: Breathing Life Into Southland. FIRST OF TWO PARTS; KARL SCHOENBERGER. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 4, 1993. pg. 1
 * Just slightly east of the well-established Chinese enclave in Monterey Park, this neighborhood's new Asian pluralism becomes instantly clear as you peruse the merchandise in the coolers and on the shelves at T & T Market.
 * MARKETS Rau Ram, Ngo Gai, Som Tam and Tam Som, Too; LINDA BURUM. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 10, 1994. pg. 30
 * Businesses and shoppers who depended on Chinatown for ethnic goods and services are going elsewhere, particularly to the booming Chinese enclaves of the San Gabriel Valley.
 * CHINATOWN Group to Study How to Revive Businesses; IRIS YOKOI. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 10, 1994. pg. 8
 * The southeast San Gabriel Valley, meanwhile, remains a magnet for Asian investment, though the real estate frenzy of the 1980s has cooled after transforming communities in Monterey Park; Alhambra and, more recently, Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights and other east valley cities into largely Chinese American enclaves.
 * Defying the odds -- San Gabriel Valley: Rising economic star Lee, Patrick. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 14, 1994. Sec. D. pg. 1
 * The measure defused some of the animosity--years later, Monterey Park is a mainly peaceable place--but the community of the past is no more. Steady streams of Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking immigrants, along with lesser numbers of Vietnamese and English-speaking Japanese, turned this town of more than 60,000 into the first city on the U.S. mainland with an Asian majority--57%, compared to 31% Latino and only 12% white. In such a thriving enclave, many Chinese--especially older immigrants--are able to live year in and year out without having to concern themselves with English. There are Mandarin and Cantonese newspapers and cable outlets and an extensive catalog of Chinese- language literature at the public library.
 * Ethnic Pockets Amid a Vast Fabric of English; L.A.'s language enclaves can be havens or prisons, but they may show how the world will one day communicate. Series: ISLANDS OF THE MIND How Language Shapes Our World. First in a three- part series; DAVID FERRELL About This Series, ROBERT LEE HOTZ. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 23, 2000. pg. 1
 * The Chinese population in Irvine has surpassed other regional Chinese enclaves like Rowland Heights. [..] Many of those moving to Irvine are first-generation Chinese immigrants from Taiwan and mainland China who originally settled in Chinese pockets like Monterey Park in the San Gabriel Valley, Chen said.
 * Irvine centers cater to Chinese // Business - A bustling retail district emerges as a cultural focal point. Series: chinese.0127 TIFFANY MONTGOMERY. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Jan 27, 2002. pg. Cover
 * Jews will be pulling out the chopsticks at eateries in Chinatown and in such San Gabriel Valley Chinese enclaves as Monterey Park and Alhambra as well, following a custom that many believe started in New York in an era when Chinese restaurants were the only ones open on Christmas.
 * Two Worlds at One Table; Shanghai Diamond Garden Restaurant is both Chinese and kosher. Melding two very different culinary traditions was difficult but is paying off. David Pierson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 24, 2005. pg. B.1
 * It's the second time in just over a week a house turned pot farm has been discovered in Diamond Bar, a wealthy suburb of 58,000 in the eastern San Gabriel Valley. Two more marijuana-cultivating homes were found in a neighboring city this month. Detectives are now investigating whether the houses might be tied to a similar suburban pot-growing ring busted last year in Northern California and allegedly run by a Chinese gang. [..] Diamond Bar, Chino Hills and surrounding communities have seen a huge influx of Asians in recent years, many moving up from Chinese enclaves closer to downtown L.A.
 * The new neighbor is a pot farm; `A disturbing trend' is seen in the crops found in Diamond Bar homes.; Tony Barboza, David Pierson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 30, 2007. pg. A.1
 * ''In fact, much of the eastern San Gabriel Valley has more in common with Taipei, Beijing or Shanghai than it does with neighboring Los Angeles. Here, Asian-immigrant entrepreneurs have transformed once-sleepy suburbia into a Chinatown like no other. They are far from struggling newcomers trying to achieve the American Dream in other Chinese enclaves such as Monterey Park and San Gabriel farther to the west. [..] When Book immigrated to the U.S. 11 years ago, she and her husband chose to live in Rowland Heights over the western San Gabriel Valley because they considered Monterey Park and its neighboring cities the domain of working-class mainland Chinese immigrants.
 * COLUMN ONE; Close to L.A. but closer to Beijing; In the eastern San Gabriel Valley, wealthy ethnic Chinese with close economic ties to Asia are thriving. Call it the third Chinatown. David Pierson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 19, 2008. pg. A.1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Southern California Chinatowns → Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley — Relisted. Macr86 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) This title would more accurately describe the content of the article. The Chinatowns in Los Angeles, San Diego, etc, are better covered in separate articles. There are several communities in the SGV that are described as Chinese enclaves, and it's better to discuss them without the contentious side issue of whether they're also called "Chinatowns".  Will Beback   talk    23:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What specifically makes them Chinese enclaves? Sure, cities in the valley have Chinese people here and there setting up businesses; but there's no special distinction from any other city other than the fact that those people speak Chinese. Enclaves, on the other hand, develop a distinct culture and are mostly homogeneous in ethnicity. Cities such as Arcadia or Monterey Park contain a good chunk of population that are variously white, Hispanic, black, etc. and it would be simply inaccurate to call them ethnic enclaves. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous sources refer to Chinese ethnic enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley. I'll prepare a list. Given the content of the article, do you think the current title is better?   Will Beback    talk    23:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted above in .   Will Beback    talk    00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Current title better. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Current title is NOT supported by sources. And per Grayshi's comments, your previous suggestion that there are "little Chinatowns" is both original research, and also an imposition of non-Chinese residents of the area (as well as on cities which pointedly, even on their own websites, refer to themselves as "Chinatowns".Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do you support the proposed move?   Will Beback    talk    02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of a separate article, though it remains to be seen if it can survive a notabiliity test (and an anti-spam, anti-directory test). But I don't support having this title as a redirect to it; this title should be, if it continues to exist at all, to something summarizing, literally, Chinatowns (the real kind, not the figurative one) in Southern California (Calico, SLO, Riverside etc as well as LA's).  So I don't support a move, but if the creation of that other article helps get rid of the ongoing efforts to turn this page into a guide to Chinese shopping and real estate in Greater LA, that's fine...but I agree with Grayshi about how the se "enclaves" aren't purely ethnic, and include peoples of other groups who may not seem themselves as part of somebody else's "enclave.  Chinese commercial districts and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley is what's accurate - "enclave" means just too much, despite the cites.Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless we agree to a move, the article will stay at this title. How many sources refer to the "Chinese commercial districts and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley", using those terms? If someone can show that's a significantly more common name then I'd be fine with that.   Will Beback    talk    10:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "significantly more common name" is a relative statement completely when the current title is NOT CITABLE AT ALL. "Chinese commercial districts and residential areas" is purely descriptive and ordinary English, also very explicit about what the content is and what the intended expansion/restoration is.  Fine, go ahead and move it; once it's done I'll re-make the "Southern California Chinatowns" so it's not a redirect to the travelogue/directory article that people seem so determined to preserve (despite it all being OR/SYNTH, under any title).  "Southern California Chinatowns" as a title should be about the REAL CHINATOWNS, not a latter-day rebranding campaign to establish "new Chinatowns" by promoting them.Skookum1 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting making a new article about places that aren't currently covered in this article. That's fine and no one is stopping you. I'm proposing to making the title of this article reflect its contents. Communities in the San Gabriel Valley have been called "Chinese enclaves", so that's why I'm proposing the title of "Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley". However, there may be terms that are more common: "Chinese presence", "Chinese activity", "Chinese populations", etc. Whichever is the more common name is fine with me. However I think that "Chinese commercial districts and residential areas" would be clumsy and overlong. I suspect we're not going to agree on this, but lets see if anyone wants to move the article. If not, we'll just leave it where it is.   Will Beback    talk    22:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the basic issue is really what is this article trying to do? The "Monterey Park is the first suburban Chinatown" bit seems (although I haven't scoured the sources) to be reasonably well-established, although it does seem to stretch the definition. So if the article gave overviews of the Chinatowns which everyone agrees are Chinatowns in SoCal and included the well-sourced bits about MP as a candidate, fine. It probably should then be extended to cover all of California then.
 * Or is the purpose to cover patterns of settlement and business of Chinese immigrants in a region of California? Here the statistics on percentage ethnic populations are useful and the academic studies become informative as a case study of how one particular ethnicity adapts to its environment. There is a different set of notability and inclusion criteria for that, and the title would be different.
 * On the strict question of the RFC, Will Beback presents an impressive list of sources, although I haven't evaluated them all in detail. I looked at this a bit yesterday and read a few sources already in the article, and looked around at other bits about what ethnic enclaves are (sadly, mostly using en:wiki, which is not RS). One thing that caught my eye was a quote from an ex-mayor of Chinese descent saying (paraphrased) "No this is not a suburban Chinatown, this is a diverse community. The old Chinatowns were ethnic Chinese enclaves." From that, and my further investigations that showed a circular relationship between "Chinatown" and "ethnic Chinese enclave", and further reading about what constitutes an "ethnic enclave", it seems to me that the proposed title change does not really address the issue of what the heck this article is supposed to be covering. Franamax (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we already have an article on Chinatowns, and a a list of Chinatowns in Canada and the United States, I think that another list would be redundant
 * The article currently seems to be covering the Chinese populations in the SGV, with some passing references to other Chinatowns that already have articles, the second concept in Franamax's list. I'm flexible about the exact title, but many people aside from a an ex-mayor, say that Chinese enclaves exist in the SGV, and many sources write about the Chinese population and businesses there. The point of this article is that those sources often cover multiple cities, so simply putting that content in each individual city would lead to considerable duplication and would omit the bigger picture that the sources describe. Can you suggest a better title for the contents of the current article?    Will Beback    talk    00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "You're suggesting making a new article about places that aren't currently covered in this article. " - well, I did add them (again, after they were ceremoniously condemned as "vandalism"); maybe they're not still there. They're what this article, by its current title, should have been about.  There's already a Monterey Park article, the remaining section here is totally redundant and misleading as well as spammish, IMO; I've only left it after taking out all the other non-Chinatown material because then the move proposal would be redundant; because this article would then ONLY be about Chinatowns (once the remaining non-Chinatown, Monterey Park, is removed).  So it's not about a name-change; it's about whether or not a separate article for this region's Chinese population is notable in its own right ,vs. other areas which as you note are covered in many of the same sources that talk about it; it's not unique, and not all that notable relative to other suburban Chinatowns, other than being (allegedly, as stated by only one author) the first one....Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Partially responding to both) I'm really unsure right now where to go with this. There certainly seems to be available sources concerning Chinese population patterns in the SGV (still not clear on whether that is strictly Han Chinese or the broader ethnic Chinese or inclusive of all East Asians in order to make a claim), and there does seem to be a distinct "story" to be told about it, which doesn't need to use either "Chinatown" or "ethnic enclave" in it's title, it seems to be a particular history of how one aspect of how one region developed. I can't particularly evaluate what that story should be, for instance Will B, can you compile a list of RS which counter the sources claiming an ethnic enclave? We would need those to properly address this specific naming proposal, otherwise we may end up speaking in the "Wikipedia voice" as an authority on the topic. One instance would be that ex-mayor I paraphrased, but I have no idea, are there more?
 * As far as suggesting a proposed name myself, at the 'mo all I can think of are titles that sound hopelessly academic, like [Ethnic Chinese immigrant settlement patterns in the San Gabriel Valley]. I considered Skookum1's suggestion of [Chinese commercial districts and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley], but that may predispose to deletion on notability grounds. With regret, all I can offer is my "academic" title for now. Franamax (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to plug in any search terms folks can suggest. I can't ask the database, "what's the most popular term", we have to make specific queries. But the Proquest archive is much better than Google, since almost every hit is a reliable newspaper or similar source. I agree that [Ethnic Chinese immigrant settlement patterns in the San Gabriel Valley] is an academic-style title. However I would be fine with that or [Chinese commercial districts and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley] if we agree to one of those. While no sources uses those exact terms (unlike "Chinese enclaves in SGV"), they are both accurate and both would cover the types of material about the Chinese presence in the SGV that are available.   Will Beback    talk    09:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't every 'Chinese enclave' a 'Chinatown' and vice versa? WP uses Chinatown in all cases; there is no good reason to make this San Gabriel Valley set of places different other than to make it different.  Why complicate things?  Hmains (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. Those areas in Monterey Park (Atlantic & Gravey), Alhambra (Valley Blvd.), San Gabriel, Rowland Hts. certainly qualify as Chinatowns with residents and mainly Chinese business. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, because the San Gabriel Valley is not a Chinatown; it is an area with a somewhat high Chinese population. If you apply DocOfSoc's or Will Beback's reasoning to all areas with some Chinese population, there would be at least several hundred, if not several thousand places in the US called "Chinatown", which is simply not the case. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's certainly a plethora of WP articles which USE that affectation, it doesn't mean any of them are right in doing so. No, a Chinatown is not simply a Chinese ethnic enclave; especially when the latter term is used to refer to concentrations of Chinese commerce in areas that are multi-ethnic, even commercially....Chinatown is a placename, not a loose description of any Chinese "colony", as has come to be the unfortunate WP "convention"; but you're suggesting using WP to cite WP, to rationalize and further popularize an application for the word which is entirely wikipedia-generated - because so much original research has been done, and so many unquestioning minds have gone along with the rebranding/semanticizing and juxtaposition of definitions to create a new one (which is SYNTH).  "Chinatown" in the usage taht some people are wanting to use it is purely a wiki-ism - it's no accident that a lot of cites which were used on various articles were all from wiki-clones.  And yes, the San Gabriel Valley is no different than other places that are also just cvommercial/suburban concentrations, and not bona fide Chinatowns; that's why this article had no real reason to exist, other than as somebody's neighbourhood exposition of where all the Chinese (and other Asian) businesses are located, i.e. a directory, a travelogue.  No academic or encyclopedia interest at all, other than what's already covered in other articles (including Monterey Park's own) - and looking to other articles which have a similarly wide latitude on original research is not any justification at all for defending this one's shortcomings; backing up one error by referring to another error just doesn't work.Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussions keeps veering off course. The topic of this thread is whether to rename this article. The four suggestions on the table are:
 * Southern California Chinatowns
 * Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley
 * Chinese commercial districts and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley
 * Ethnic Chinese immigrant settlement patterns in the San Gabriel Valley
 * Are there any others?    Will Beback    talk    22:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but Southern California Chinatowns is the best title. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're advocating an original research/synth use of a word that means something else in proper English. Trying to insist that just because there's a bunch of Chinese people and some stores makes a "Chinatown" is a conceit and a fabrication and none of the places talked about 'describe themselves as Chinatown'' (some explicitly avoid the term, or point out that it's somewhere else).  You clearly haven't read the rest of the discussion, or feel that your own adoption of the word to mean "place with lots of Chinese businesses and people" is just peachy-keen.  It's not, not in this article, not in others.  If that were the definition the whole of Greater Vancouver would be about 50 so-called Chinatowns (25 of those within the city proper, which has a specific place called "Chinatown").  There's already List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese populations, there's no need for anything more to count for the "concentrations" of Chinese in Artesia, Monterey Park, Rowland Heights etc....branding those places Chinatowns when other people live there, and neither they nor the Chinese people in question call it Chinatown either, is both original research and callously presumptuous.Skookum1 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnoburb vs enclave
If one looks at the definitions of Enclave, one will find that  it is not the proper usage for this article. Ethnoburb was thoroughly discussed three times and determined to be proper terminology. See:,. I agree with Ucla90024 (above) but that would just engender another useless, circular discussion. That I was not informed of the above discussion, despite my obvious previous involvement, I find quite curious, especially since it was closed by a banned editor without consensus. Also notable is that the editor that changed the title today seems to have forgotten what he said above: "enclave" means just too much, despite the cites. Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC), so I really do not understand the change and incorrect usage. "Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc2, I've struck a bit in your post above, as it looks like the comment is signed by Skookum1. And no one really is entitled to special notice requirements here. The close was curious, yes, but since I feel it's at least an improvement, I'm not going to reverse it myself.


 * I've looked over the "ethnoburb" issue, it is in Wiktionary as a "protologism" (hadn't seen that word before either) between "ethernado" and "eumeterate". It really appears that this term is the invention of one author who has used it repeatedly, in fact they seem to have decided to use this exact area to invent and popularize a new term. That's fine as far as having an Ethnoburb article but I would hesitate at using it in other article titles, even this one, until it has gained much more weight in general academia and popular media. However I do agree that "enclave" is a bit problematic. I would propose as a simple solution to instead use the term "ethnic suburb", as the inventor of the new term does here. This avoids any problems with neologisms/protologisms and I believe accurately represents the subject of the article. Franamax (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the only other alternative, previously noted here, is Chinese commercial and residential areas in the San Gabriel Valley - "settlement" and "immigration" as surrogates for "commercial and residential areas" won't do....."ethnoburb" is not acceptable as a trendy neologism and NOT in wide use; and noting the restoration of sections here which are just about where a few Chinese stores etc are, and which do not define an "ethnoburb", then "residential and commercial areas" is the only phrasing which suits the article's content.Skookum1 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion of "ethnoburb' goes way back in 2006, when it was deleted but recreated in 2007. The term may not be colloquial, but it is academic, and thus not neologism. It has been used in plenty of academic studies and books for several years. Hence, it is no way "trendy."  Here are search results for the term on Google Scholar  and Google Books.  I cannot take credit for this search but you will find the reference on   and its editor.  It is not the invention of "one author" by a long shot. Thanks. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two more excellent sources from general search today.  As a sociologist, and a retired academic, ref #7 deserves more than a cursory glance. I found it  very interesting reading for several issues under discussion. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"In case you don't feel like reading that much, here is a quote from 1998, which is especially pertinent: Ethnoburbs are suburban ethnic clusters of residential areas and business districts in large metropolitan areas. They are multiethnic communities, in which one ethnic minority group has a significant concentration, but does not necessarily comprise a majority. Ethnoburbs are created through deliberate efforts of that group within changing global/national/local contexts. They function as a settlement type that replicates some features of an enclave, and some features of a suburb lacking a specific ethnic identity. Ethnoburbs coexist along with traditional ethnic ghettos/enclaves in inner cities in contemporary American society.

6) Ethnoburbs as a new type of ethnic settlement are more likely to locate in the suburbs of major metropolitan areas. They are created by ethnic people (including new immigrants and later generations) under the influences of contemporary socio-economic and political structural changes. Ethnoburbs are fully functioning communities with their own internal socio-economic structures which are integral to national and international environments. They are not isolated ethnic communities, but an open system tied by information exchange, business connections and social activities with the mainstream society. Ethnoburbs have replaced or are replacing traditional downtown enclaves, as more important new "ports of entry" for immigrantsin some large American metropolitan areas. After they are established, ethnoburbs continue to grow and to diffuse spatially and develop socio-economically.

7) Ethnoburbs as ethnic concentration areas are different from the traditional ethnic settlement types (ghetto and enclave) in the    following ways (Table 1)... :"  DocOfSoc (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd point to the sources excerpted at, above. I believe "enclave" is use more frequently than either "ethnoburb" (though that is used in some circumstnaces) or "residential and commercial areas". However if anyone can show those terms are used more often than we can use whichever one is most common.   Will Beback    talk    23:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "residential and commercial areas" is just purely descriptive, especially given the re-addition of trivial "two Chinese stores and a restaurant" type sections, which are clearly neither enclaves as such, nor ethnobrubs; not Chinese ethnoburbs anyway. Both "Chinese enclaves" and "Chinese ethnoburbs" imply that they are only Chinese, also, exclusive of others; we already know that there are other ethnicities in these areas; but "Chinese enclave" and "Chinese ethnoburb" are misleading; not as bad as "Chinatowns" before, but still misleading and WP:UNDUE.  This is really only an article about Chinese residential and commercial concentrations/areas and, well, really still is original research/synth and of dubious value in teh first place.Skookum1 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources?   Will Beback    talk    01:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, see: Google Scholar and Google Books, which show over 2000 references.DocOfSoc (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Skookum, please do not regurgitate the old arguments from the previous AfD that failed. Thank you! DocOfSoc (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about ethnoburbs in general, we're talking about the Chinese ethnoburbs in Southern California or the San Gabriel Valley. The right Google searches would compare the frequency of "Chinese ethnoburb" to "Chinese enclave", and it should probably include some local place names to make sure it doesn't bring in references to Canadian or other areas.   Will Beback    talk    01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since "enclave" has been part of the vernacular for many years and "ethnoburb" is just emerging from usage in the academic community in the last several years, there is no way to do a statistical analysis concluding in a valid comparison of usage between the two terms. Stats 101 ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

From the book: "Joe Chung Fong's 1996 article states that globalized-localized ethnic enclave economy perspectives "do not concretely address the fundamental question of how transnational migrants and their businesses developed ties with other transnational migrants within an evolving local community" in the San Gabriel valley area, where Monterey Park is located. Other studies provide valuable information about and insights into San Gabriel valley's Chinese communities, but they focus on either certain aspects like the ethnic economy or politics or a single city like Monterey Park, with the exception of the studies by Joe Chung Fong, Leland Saito, and Yen Fen Zseng which discuss the situation in the San Gabriel valley as a whole. No study, however, has dealt comprehensively with the phenomenon of new suburban ethnic concentrations or on the new geographic parameters of ethnic settlement. Some analysts have, in fact, referred to this type of new ethnic concentrations in suburbs as ethnoburbs." Franamax your suggestion of "ethnic suburb" does not embrace the fact that "ethnoburbs" are in reality "suburbs within suburbs,"  a  sociological geographical phenomenon,  on which I should submit a paper to my favorite journal, "Sociological Perspectives".  ;-)  DocOfSoc (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to using whichever term is most common.   Will Beback    talk    02:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I submit that there is no actual term in any kind of common usage, and that the mono-ethnic theme of this article's material concerning areas which are, as described, "transnational" is both UNDUE and also inappropriate; the gist of the failed AfD here was that this article was Original Research and Synthesis; that observation still stands, and is borne out by the problematic coming-up-with-a-name for it we're faced with here.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd point to the sources excerpted at, above.   Will Beback    talk    07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Doc2, please do not post excerpts from the (presumably copyrighted) works of others without providing a very clear citation to indicate where you have gotten the material from. I'll note too that if the discussion from which you copied the Google Scholar and Books search terms was this one, you might want to read further where the contributor was taken to task for waving their hand at a search term rather than providing specific results or analysis. And I'll continue, nothing in the AFD discussions you cite to frame this thread says "ehtnoburb" is proper terminology for the title of this article - the article exists, but that is by no means a compelling reason to rename this one. And you didn't even raise that possibility in the RM discussion. And so far as I can tell, the closer of that discussion, although controversial, is not banned.
 * I've looked at the specific sources you cite above, and correct me if I'm wrong but it is all Li Wei, and discussions of Wei's work. I did find one paper elsewhere about "ethnoburbs" in Auckland, but that is hardly compelling evidencxe of widespread acceptance of the term in academia and popular media such that en:wiki should adopt it for article names. If there is not widespread acceptance elsewhere that this is a common way to name things, we can't forge onto new ground.
 * Will, "whichever term is most common" has the big problem of bias toward search engine results without critical analysis of the individual sources, and as we've discussed before, the impossibility of searching for "NOT-this". Where hit-counts are not overwhelmingly different or where selection bias could have an effect, we need to apply critical judgement and seek areas of agreement.
 * I will go with Skookum1 on "residential and commercial areas", at lesat for now. I asked way back in the RM thread above what the heck this article is about, and to me that is the most fair and neutral title to describe the content. Does anyone present say the article is not about that topic? Franamax (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the difference in meaning between "Chinese commercial and residential areas " and "Chinese enclaves"?   Will Beback    talk    07:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two differences, although maybe they are the same difference. The term "enclave" has a defined meaning and there is not a good fit between the formal definitions I've read and the specific areas covered in this article. And use of either of the terms "ethnoburb" or "enclave" would limit the article content to strictly the specific areas named in a prepomderance of sources. It's not sufficient to say "well, since this one area is defined in one source as an ethnoburb/enclave, then these other areas with the same characteristics must be ethnoburbs/enclaves also" - as you know, that is original research. The same problem will arise with "Chinese commercial and residential areas" as to sourcing, which goes back to what the article is actually supposed to be about. If it is about the ethnoburb, it should likely be merged into ethnoburb, since that is what the name was coined for. That's why I suggested "patterns of ethnic settlement" also, since it admits of a wider range of topics. But I'll live with the current title too, even though I think it's inaccurate. And of course the arguments over what exactly should be included will go on regardless... Franamax (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume that "commercial area" has a defined meaning too, but I doubt we could find many sources that refer to the "Chinese commercial areas" of the San Gabriel Valley. You you can see from the excerpts above, we have sources that refer to several of the local cities by name as being Chinese enclaves. The bottom line is that many scholars and journalists write about the Chinese population in the San Gabriel Valley. This article is an effort to summarize their commentary. It isn't about old urban Chinatowns or the ethnoburbs of Vancouver.    Will Beback    talk    09:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confusing me now. Why would we be including material about Vancouver? Franamax (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I probably misread you. I thought you were suggesting we might merge this article to Ethnoburb, which isn't specific to San Gabriel Valley or Southern California, and which could contain information about Vancourver's ethnoburbs, for example.    Will Beback    talk    10:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Square one
From above: "The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Southern California Chinatowns → Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley —Relisted. Macr86 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010" Back to square one. The result of the above discussion was that is was closed and RENAMED by a banned non-admin editor arbitrarily; And NO One objected, to my utter astonishment. When I discovered this, I made what I thought was the appropriate change and was reverted within a very short time without discussion, the usual... Also, since I have been part and parcel of this discussion for some time and no one informed me of the above discussion is very un-wiki like and (Pick a word, mine are unprintable), maybe just rude. During this time I had whooping cough, and didn't see it myself. After much work on this article and a long and acrimonious AfD, [], that was closed with No Consensus, after Franamax justifiably threw up his hands in "boredom" and I suspect disgust. This discussion goes in circles and becomes very repetitious, I am frustrated, as I don't see any progress, actually the reverse. I stay away for a month while ill, and come back to see the article is totally decimated AGAIN for the specious reasons repeated and over again. This is, historically, a new phenomenon, "ethnic suburb", if you will. For this new phenomenon there is a new word, son of a gun, ethnic+ suburb= "ethnoburb", in usage by many, not just the prolific Dr. Li. This is not a static language or society, but rather than moving forward in a qualitatively sociological manner, it remains stuck and hence Wiki is behind the times. Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky, but I am frustrated and still not tip- top health wise. I suggest "Ethnic Suburbs of Whatever" ( L.A. or Southern CA or L.A County)until there is a move forward with this group, with academia, into this century. This is not a dead language, like Latin. I will continue working on the article, whatever you name it. Qualitative research is often accomplished by living with the subjects/area being studied. I do that. Please just make a relatively informed (or not) decision and let me know. Respect each other and this sociologist please. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to go dance that dance again, the original research and synth issue still stand with that title, it's unsupported by common use and is contrary to the general North American meaning of that term. And you saying "but I'm from there" it doesn't wash; I'm from an area with similar ethnic population foci and only one of them is "Chinatown" (though there were others historically in the same reason by that name, but they have vanished, e.g. New Westminster, Mission, Nanaimo etc.  Saying that you think it's a Chinatown, or synthesizing scattered travel and blog usages, and a few academics figurative coinages, and saying it's the term to use, is "not on".  I even dislike the rural/urban Chinatown distinction that's turned up; there really was no distinction in the context of the time, or in terms of North American usage of the term, which is nothing like you are wanting to use it to mean.  The content, under whatever title, remains of questionable Wiki-value because of UNDUE and as Franamax has pointed out, a full ethnocultural portrait, if anything, including non-Chinese, is what's called for in the case of the San Gabriel Valley, if anything; not an article focussed on one ethnicity's presence, with the others mentioned only in passing and even when the Chinese aren't a minority nor are those places called Chinatown even by themselves - Monterey Park's own website uses "Chinatown" to refer to LA Chinatown, not to itself.  An admin will realize the original research and synth of sources much more readily than a non-admin didn't know enough to understand or consider properly.  You talk about going around in circles; and you're talking about doing it again....be careful what you wish for.  An article on ethnocultural settlement and commerce for a given region makes sense; one focussed on a particular ethnicity's presence in it, and using a term which implies Chinese exclusivity at the same time as making other groups just footnotes in the "new Chinatowns", shows an insensitivity to intercultural realities; that people who aren't Chinese who live in those areas would also not call them Chinatowns, and wouldn't want them to be called that, is a level of sensitivity you should consider in advocating this Wiki-adoption of a term not used by others the way you mean, but you would like to become standard.  It's not, and shouldn't be made so by a Wikipedia article to propagate the term...there's a more general topic Asian history in California perhaps, or something of a title like as in History of Chinese immigration to Canada, only make it California; but it's not as if other parts of California aren't also as ethnically complex; or as ethnically Chinese, historically or at present; Chinatowns are places, places with names, whose identities are tied to the name; you're wanting to use the term for anywhere Chinese people live and shop, alongside and mixed in with others, and not even calling it a Chinatown themselves; but you want everybody to....why is that anyway?Skookum1 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should try reading it again and then speak in a respectful manner as I requested. No where did I mention calling it a Chinatown.  Research shows that San Gabriel Valley is unique, so it does't matter where else one lives.  No where are the salient issues I raised addressed.  AS one of our wise admins stated: "Avoid the use of "you" when discussing an article. Perhaps an admin would care to explain what I wrote above. Good Night. DocOfSoc (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC) BTW< Monterey Park did refer to themselves as a Chinatown for several years until the recent revamping of their website.DocOfSoc (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DocOfSoc, once again, no-one, but no-one is "required" to notify you or any other editor on this wiki of anything, except in a few disciplinary areas. There's no point in saying that "no-one" informing you of something is un-wiki-like or rude. Do you know how a watchlist works? And I do have to point out that where you say above "Qualitative research is often accomplished by living with the subjects/area being studied. I do that.", then if you are indicating you intend to apply the results of that reseacrh to this article you are engaging in original research which is specifically prohibited on English Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a Sociologist. Research is what I do. No where did I indicate that my research would be used here, I have enough of my own projects going ATM. See my user page. Bringing up the original research is Beating a dead horse in this long-lived discussion. I am sorry if you got the wrong impression. More later, Crohnie has given me a strict bedtime. ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Asking an experienced editor if one knows about the "watchlist" is unworthy of you. As I pointed out before, I was sick in bed most of the time and everything does not show up on watchlist any way. This is not like you Fran, is something wrong? I have never been deeply involved in another article without someone informing me of a discussion, I rather thought it was an understood policy  but I guess it is just polite :-D.  I mentioned several items above which have not been addressed.  Namaste DocOfSoc (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

East of SGV
Maybe it'd be best to have a separate section on areas east of SGV. SGV suburbs, if you will, or spillovers. That'd include Hacienda Heights, West Covina, Walnut, Diamond Bar, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino Hills, etc. I've seen sources which describe those as part of the same demographic trend as the SGV places.  Will Beback   talk    09:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the "Valley Boulevard Corridor" section could be in a "East of SGV" section too.   Will Beback    talk    09:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Will, All those cities except Rancho Cucamonga and Chino hills are in the SGV. I have removed those two. I am concerned that we have agreed that enclaves is not the proper term and it is still up there. Also, Chinese is exclusionary, i.e. The Vietnamese and Koreans are fairly prominent in this area. Second concern: No one responded to my reasonable request for polite discussion, Ethnoburb has now been discussed ad infinitum.  I suggest we now change this incorrect title, and consider "San Gabriel Valley Ethnoburbs," and edit and expand the article accordingly, which I have started. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Chinese isn't the only ethnicity of significance. "Asian enclaves of SGV" or "Asian ethnoburbs of SGV" could work. But if we get too vague it becomes untenable.   Will Beback    talk    10:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. "San Gabriel Valley Ethnoburbs", is pretty specific ;-) Another thought: Will readers look for SGV, or the more vague Asian? DocOfSoc (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Franamax,in answer to your previous question above, see Chinese Vietnamese

Reminder from above: "The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Southern California Chinatowns → Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley —Relisted. Macr86 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010...The result of the above discussion was that is was closed and RENAMED by a banned non-admin editor arbitrarily; And NO One objected DocOfSoc (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Will Beback agrees, I will change the title to "San Gabriel Valley Ethnoburbs" shortly. DocOfSoc (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources that use that term?   Will Beback    talk    05:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are lot more Chinese than Janpanese, Koreans, and other group. That's why all the Chinese business with Chinese characters. Chinese enclaves is o.k. Ucla90024 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look up enclaves. We have already had this discussion. It is the improper terminology. Chinese excludes a lot of people.
 * WTH UcLa?DocOfSoc (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ethnoburb" is also improper terminology. And if you want to drop either of "Chinese" or "Asian", then I presume any Hispanic areas can be included here, African, Jewish, Indian? Franamax (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"edit conflict" I don't understand where you are coming form Franamax!?? Ethnoburb is what these places are! Nobody said drop "Asian". You have me flummoxed!
 * 1) "Unlike urban immigrant “ethnic enclaves,” in which the majority of residents are low-income and limited in employable skills, ethnoburbs draw a wide range of immigrants, from wealthy, highly educated entrepreneurs to poor, unskilled workers." DocOfSoc (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nobody said drop 'Asian'" - then what did you say at 04:39 25 Jan 11, just a few lines above this? And once again, "ethnoburb" is an invention of one person, Li Wei. It is not in wide scademic or popular use. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"If Will Beback agrees, I will change the title to "San Gabriel Valley Ethnoburbs" shortly. DocOfSoc (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)" This what what I said. I don't understand your question. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Chinese settlement in these multiethnic ethnoburbs is economically fueled by businesses and their transnational financial and commodity ties with Asia, such as in the San Gabriel Valley in east suburban Los Angeles."As the language evolves, someone needs to keep up with the geographical and sociological changes, in this case Li. Ethnoburbs was coming into use when I was getting my Master's in Sociology in 2000.  ;-) . It is widely used academically, where did that come from?


 * 
 * BRB DocOfSoc (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you before not to just wave your hand at a Google Book search. As it happens, try Race, ethnicity, and place in a changing America p. 236 - 'Wei Li's "ethnoburb" (Li, 1998)'. It was brand new when you first heard it. Wikipedia is not the place to popularize it's use in article titles in general encyclopedias. Does Britannica use it in article titles? Franamax (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't just wave my hand. I read several synopsis. You asked me to be more specific and I did.  Journal articles are the cutting edge, and yes it was new, eleven years ago! Made for very scholarly discussions especially with the kids form Monterey park! It is well accepted in academic circles. Britannica?  DocOfSoc (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)