Talk:Thomas Foon Chew

California alien land law of 1918
The text says he purchased the Palo Alto land in 1918. I assume he got the paperwork signed just before the alien land law of 1918 took effect? This might be worth investigating in the context of anti-Chinese activities at the time. 73.93.79.131 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A bigger question is how he immigrated to the US after the 1882 exclusion act (apparently on a visa for Chinese merchants).  I'm going to see what sources I can find. Erp (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Following up, at least in some cases he set up a corporation to own the land though I need to find some more specifics. Erp (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Article appears to advocate the writer's point of view about a public controversy
The City of Palo Alto is currently trying to have a portion of the building under discussion used for housing, which is needed in our city. Very recently, people have been trying to get the city to protect the building as an historical asset.

This article was apparently begun in early 202s since there was no Wiki article about Mr. Chew. The article is mostly reasonable, in my opinion, but contains a paragraph supporting the historical declaration that appears to be too strong and unqualified. The biggest issue is that the article does not note that the city has had this space used for housing. Indeed, the city gave Fry's an allowance of time due to public support for Fry's. When Fry's shut down, the city switched to approving housing as planned by the owner.

Other points that should be included: 1. The difficulty of getting historical protection. 2. The expenses that someone (likely taxpayers) would have to pay for all of this. 3. The loss of needed housing for our community. 4. The last-minute interruption of a long-term process.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed here to make the article be in compliance with Wikipedia rules. As it stands, I believe that this article is an effort to advocate for the writer's position on the use of the property and has failed to be objective.

I suggest removing the sentences that advocate historical protection, or adding a balance discussion of the issues.

Thank you. 99.36.166.155 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've tightened up and added a bit about the City Council considering renaming Portage Drive after him.  Note a lot of what you are asking for would be more appropriate in an article on the Cannery building, if one existed, or in the main Palo Alto article.   We could have a legacy section in this article covering some of the stuff preserved in Alviso as well as Palo Alto and elsewhere; however, this article hasn't even got any subsections on his life yet. Note also that stating the fact that some people opposed demolishing a building associated with the entry subject is not the same as the article text advocating for saving it. Erp (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)