Jump to content

Talk:Chinatown, Houston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinatown

[edit]

The writer of this entry on Chinatown, Houston said that it has been an area of settlement for Chinese Mexicans. I assume this is a more recent population of Chinese Mexicans that has settled since the 1970's or so. Historically, Chinese Mexicans preferred El Paso and San Antonio.

I'd like to know where the writer got his/her info on the Chinese Mexicans settling in the Bellaire Chinatown area. I'd like to know how many Chinese Mexicans the writer believes live in the Bellaire Chinatown of Houston. And I'd like to know when they settled and what they do.

I am the editor of a Univ of Texas book on the history of Asian Americans in Texas, and I found your Wikipedia website very useful for this neighborhood-related information.

Thank you for helping me.

Irwin Tang

(the above un-dated reply seems to be from "[as edited by] 70.112.217.143 (talk) at 14:23, 1 January 2005" ... although since it was sorta "signed" -- in one sense -- [but, NOT using quadruple tilde characters ... aka "~" characters ... oopsie!] ... by "Irwin Tang", -- therefore, that person [Irwin Tang] probably did have [use] ["correspond to"] that IP address ... at that time.)

First Reply

[edit]

Honestly, I would take every information found on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a source, especially for a scholarly book.

(the above un-dated reply seems to be from ["16:18, 5 February 2005"] (see the "diff" listing of the edit, at that date and time) ... and was not signed at all, ... but appears, [according to the "diff" listing] to have been from someone usign the IP address 24.205.182.21.)

Second Reply

[edit]

I am just taking a GUESS here, but maybe the intent of that comment about "an area of settlement for Chinese Mexicans" ... was really intended to say, ... something more like: that it had been an area of settlement for Chinese AND Mexicans.

If so, then ... "no comment" from me about whether the writer who might have left out the word "and", ... might have been a speaker of English as a second or foreign language ("ESL"). If "mistakes were made", then ... "never mind!" why they were made.

My point is just that, "an area of settlement for Chinese Mexicans" might have been "one word away from" saying what was really intended, and ... if so ... then ... what was really intended, might have been something more like: "[...] Chinese AND Mexicans".

Just an idea. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Can anyone provide a better photo? This blurry one, shot through a dirty windshield, is not very descriptive of the subject. SteveHopson 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link to the Chronicle map http://images.chron.com/photos/2007/05/09/0509asiatown/0509asiatown.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown street names

[edit]
  • Bellaire Boulevard: 百利大道 Bǎilì Dàdào
  • Beltway 8: 八號公路 Bāhào Gōnglù
  • Corporate Drive: 合作路 Hézuò Lù
  • Gessner Road: 吉順路 Jíshùn Lù
  • Harwin Drive: 好運大道 Hǎoyùn Dàdào
  • Ranchester Drive: 康潔路 Kāngjiélù
  • Town Park: 公園街 Gōngyuán Jiē
  • Westline: 西園街 Xī Yuán Jiē
  • Wilcrest Drive: 衛道路 Wèi Dàolù

As shown here, Town Park and Westline do have Chinese names. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the correct tones. though it would take me far less time if they weren't requested. and note the spacing.
  • Belliare Blvd: Bǎilì Dàdào
  • Beltway 8: Bāhào Gōnglù
  • Corporate Drive: Hézuò Lù
  • Gessner Road: Jíshùn Lù (don't know why it's "Jishun", which is certainly not a transliteration)
  • Harwin Drive: Hǎoyùn Dàdào
  • Ranchester: Kāngjié Lù
  • Town Park: Gōngyuán Jiē
  • Westline: Xīyuán Jiē
  • Wilcrest Drive: Wèi Dàolù. not sure about the spacing of this one, as "Wèidào Lù" is equally as likely. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is Houston's Chinatown a Mandarin Chinatown? If it's like most North American Chinatowns, all those readings are wrong, because it would be Cantonese. 184.144.170.217 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia Standard Mandarin readings are always included with Chinese text. If other dialects are involved, those readings are also included. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, Hong Kong and Macau articles frequently only contain Cantonese transcriptions, and many North American articles are similarly Cantonese, because Mandarin is not what the place or person speaks/spoke. Using Mandarin for a Cantonese locality where Mandarin is not the official language is bordering on WP:Original Research. 184.144.170.217 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language) (a proprosed/in development guideline) - It doesn't say "Mandarin shouldn't be included on HK-Macau pages" - it also doesn't say "Mandarin should be included everywhere" - so I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(use_of_Chinese_language)
Anyway, based on the research I did, I found no evidence that any dialect of Chinese other than Mandarin is used widely-extensively in this Chinatown, and remember that this is about a new Chinatown that developed in the 1990s. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing WP:OR about transliterations from Chinese characters into romanizations. Inclusion of Hanyu Pinyin is perfectly fine IMO. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw this discussion and wanted to add my two cents. Adding putonghua transcriptions is probably something that should always be done, but in most Chinatowns Cantonese transcriptions are definitely the "original" (though perhaps not in Houston). Isn't there a simple option in the ZH-template to make pinyin not be the first transliteration? Perhaps just switching MAND <--> CANT would do the trick.
Also, User:WhisperToMe is mistaken in one of his above listings: "Gessner Road 吉順路" is certainly a transliteration: it's just a Cantonese one (gat1seon6). Drop the final "t" on 吉 as is common in non-HK dialects and there you go. Perhaps this is indicative of something relevant to the above discussion....?  White Whirlwind  咨  04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what the "original" transliteration is, a Mandarin translation will always exist for it. I never said that Mandarin was the "original" for any of these - I simply only found the Mandarin ones - that's all. I did say "I found no evidence that any dialect of Chinese other than Mandarin is used widely-extensively in this Chinatown" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chinatown, Houston. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Chinatown, Houston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communities may be defined differently for different purposes and it is difficult and limiting to try to designate one as the official one. The economic influence of Koreatown, Los Angeles was recognized, especially along business corridors, but small, mainly residential neighborhoods did not want the city to lose their local voice on city issues by being included in a large Koreatown designation. The "official" boundaries were limited in order to take this into account. Planners might use one map for economic development and another for residential development that overlap each other. Maybe the situation is similar here. Fettlemap (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible TYPO (or other mistake) regarding the western boundary

[edit]

Background

[edit]

When I first saw the second sentence of the first paragraph, [of this article], it said:

It is roughly bounded by Fondren Road, Beechnut Street, State Highway 6, and Westpark Drive, and lies between Alief and the city of Bellaire.

and that -- (especially the part about having State 6 as its western boundary) -- did not sound right to me.

I was looking at this specific version (the "18:52, 15 December 2017" version) of the article ... which was the most recent version, at the time when these comments were written.

I had recently been looking on Google Maps, which seemed to disagree with (or "have a different 'take' on") those boundaries ... especially the western boundary.

I am not necessarily putting Google Maps on a pedestal, nor saying that anything that disagrees with that web site should be changed to agree with it.

However, if the main (or the only) reason for disagreement, is some TYPO (or other un-intentional mistake), (e.g. in the second sentence of this article), then IMHO it might be appropriate to consult any available source of information, including Google Maps -- and/or maybe even including asking someone who lives in Southwest Houston! -- in order to help figure out what was originally intended (/slash, what is really true).

I had already looked (on January 22, 2018) at the web page that came up, on my ChromeBox desktop computer (which is similar to a ChromeBook laptop ... I think they both use [almost?] the same "ChromeOS" ... and [almost?] the same Chrome browser) when one enters the URL https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chinatown,+Houston,+TX+77036/ into the "location" window.

(Disclosure: the above mentioned URL (ending with "77036/") "changes" all by itself, to -- or maybe it automatically "forwards" to? -- a much longer URL, -- "such as:" this one -- but that [longer] URL is so long that it is probably not appropriate for inclusion in the "displayable" text of a "Talk:" page. [I hope it will be forgiven, that it is even in the wikitext.])

Feel free to try it for yourself. When I tried it (on January 22, 2018), the "boundaries" shown -- (by Google Maps, that is) -- (for "place/Chinatown,+Houston,+TX+77036") ... were: approximately as follows:

  • NORTH: just slightly south of Westpark Tollway
  • EAST: Gessner, south until Sands Point Drive; and then just slightly east of Gessner, so as to include the properties on both sides of Gessner, for the rest of the way South ... all the way to Beechnut
  • SOUTH: Beechnut
  • WEST: the east side of the "Sam Houston Tollway" (also known as "Beltway 8")

I began to suspect a TYPO (or other mistake)

[edit]

I noticed that the main point of disagreement, was regarding the WEST boundary. The article ("as of" the "18:52, 15 December 2017" version) says [see e.g. the first "<blockquote>d" 'quote' above] that the WEST boundary is State Highway 6 -- a disagreement of over five miles. There is little or no disagreement about the NORTH and SOUTH boundaries, and the disagreement about the EAST boundary (Fondren vs. Gessner or "just slightly east of Gessner") ... is only about a mile.

Another clue might be, the sentence (at the end of the first paragraph of this article) that says:

Portions of Chinatown lie within the Southwest (formerly Greater Sharpstown), International, and Westchase management districts.

This might help to suggest whether Chinatown really extends all the way West to Texas State Highway 6 ("State 6") or whether (as Google Maps seems to conclude) it ends ... more like ... right on the East side of Beltway 8.

Any comments?

[edit]

Unless there are some responses here, within about a week or so ... I might just go ahead and ... edit the article. Now's your chance! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Schwartz:, Hi, Mike! I'm glad I found these comments. One thing is that Wikipedia needs to be based on published sources, as per WP:V. There are different boundaries from different published sources. I do not know where Google Maps gets its map boundaries from, but it's a good idea to check. As the City of Houston municipal government itself has no specific definition of Chinatown, there are different entities and agencies with their own definitions. Lori Rodriguez of the Houston Chronicle had one here (she sourced it to the Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau) and the Southwest Management District has another definition (although it obviously cannot define it beyond the management district borders!).
By the way, regarding " and/or maybe even including asking someone who lives in Southwest Houston!" - WP:V says that published sources, not personal experiences, determine the content on here. However being a local has an advantage in that one may more easily know of published sources which can help shape an article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe:, Good point about that << "asking someone [...]" >> quip. It probably should have said [something more like] << "and/or maybe even including starting out by asking someone who lives in Southwest Houston!" >>.
That [wording] would perhaps have (properly) fit in with the process whereby, one must end up with some kind of published book or periodical or other document, (e.g., to "refer to" in a footnote), but whereby, one can still begin the search, [hoping that it will lead to such a happy result], by starting out with asking someone who is herself not necessarily a "reliable source". Thank you.
PS: The article still seems to disagree with "Google Maps" ... mostly about the western boundary, but also (slightly) about the eastern boundary. (While I still do not know where Google Maps gets its map boundaries from), it does seem like it would be better, if ... either Google Maps or the lede of this article, would be updated (/slash "corrected") so that they would be [more] in agreement. That would be nice, (wouldn't it?) -- ! --
(First, one would probably have to consult someone (or some web page) from the "(GHCVB)", and/or some reliable sources, or something ... to determine which one is wrong! ... and then (secondly), if Google Maps did turn out to be wrong. and in need of being updated, then ... the "DIY" methods available to the ordinary "person in possession of some 'correction' information" might or might not make it easy to get the search giant to make the needed 'correction'.)
[PS, cont'd]: Here is the sentence of the article, that would either need to (a) be edited, [to correct it, if it is wrong], or (b) maybe to be used as part of some "convincing" strategy, if the initial [DIY] efforts to get the search giant to make an ("allegedly needed") 'correction' were requiring even more "convincing" convincing than had been tried "so far":

According to the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau (GHCVB) it is roughly bounded by Fondren Road, Beechnut Street, State Highway 6, and Westpark Drive, and lies between Alief and the city of Bellaire.

That is a quote from of the second sentence of (this recent version of) the article, containing some info that is sorta informally "attributed to" the "(GHCVB)".
Since others here probably care more [than I do] about [the quality and correctness of the information found in] the articles in the Wikipedia "Category" Neighborhoods in Houston -- or perhaps [the quality and correctness of] the information found in Google Maps, if that is where there is some "room for improvement" -- I guess I will leave it up to them, to pursue this [instance of] "disagreement". In fact, maybe the people from Google Maps

-- (if they think that their data is more accurate than the lede of the Wikipedia article) --

would even be so good as to ... [be willing to] provide

-- (perhaps by linking to it? or ... by pointing to it in some way) (maybe even via a link to something in "Google Books"?) --

some published "reliable source" info

-- [maybe even the exact "reliable source" info that they themselves rely on?] --

to help some energetic editor to [be able to] edit in an "update" or a change -- perhaps with a footnote! -- to "correct" the lede of this article. ("if appropriate".)
End of PS. ...and, Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a person who is knowledgeable may know where the reliable sources of a topic are. Since I grew up in Houston I'm aware of the publications and agencies which may have the information needed to write such articles.
In order to use the Google Maps boundary for Chinatown, I need to know where they are getting it from. It's unlikely, IMO, that Google arbitrarily decided to write their own boundary for Chinatown.
Please note that in many cases there is no single set of boundaries for a neighborhood: Third Ward, Houston talks about this in one section. That's why there are disparities between sources.
Thanks,
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update I checked the Google Maps definition - it "is* the Greater Southwest Management District's map WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definition(s) of Chinatown used/cited by the article Request for Comment (RFC)

[edit]

There is a clear consensus that the management district's definition of "Chinatown" should not take precedence over other definitions like those from local media. There is a clear consensus that the lead should not be restricted to using only the management district's definition of "Chinatown".

Editors were divided between whether that should mean having both the management district's definition and the Houston Chronicle's definition of Chinatown in the lead (as proposed by WhisperToMe) or having a single, more vague description in the lead (as suggested by Oldsanfelipe2). I encourage editors to discuss these two options further in a separate RfC as many RfC participants did not state which option they preferred so it was not possible to determine which option has consensus.

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The question is whether the lead of the article should only mention definitions of Chinatown from local government bodies, or whether it should mention other definitions of Chinatown quoted by secondary sources such as newspapers.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Details

[edit]

@ParaguaneroSwag: There is a Houston Chronicle article that uses a wider definition of Chinatown from the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors' Bureau (GHCVB), a non-profit organization that contracts with the City of Houston, that includes an ethnic Vietnamese area west of (outside) Beltway 8 in its definition of "Chinatown". The article itself notes that there are multiple ethnicities in the area and that there were proposals/views to label the area "Asiatown" and the like instead. The area east of (inside) Beltway 8 is more ethnic Chinese.

There is a more restrictive definition from the Southwest Management District (formerly the Greater Sharpstown District), a special district established by the Texas Legislature, that excludes the ethnic Vietnamese area and generally only includes the Chinese area, although the boundaries of the district end at Beltway 8; the Vietnamese area is inside another management district, the International District, and the GSMD cannot include areas in its definition that are not within the district. I am not aware of the City of Houston (meaning the city government) nor of Harris County explicitly defining Chinatown itself.

The other party argues that the GHCVB is not a government body and that it cannot be counted as "official". The other party argues that only "official" definitions should be used/quoted in the article, and that the GHCVB one should be excluded from consideration in the article. The other party states that "Little Saigon, Houston " has no official boundaries but is popularly established through the International district street signs.

I argue that the article should consider any definition that is either from a government body or one quoted in a secondary source (say a newspaper article), and that the more expansive GHCVB definition should be considered as the Chronicle has used it. I also argue that any articles/content supporting the status of "Little Saigon, Houston " being a distinct area need written, published sources saying so. Because of the fact that popular definitions of neighborhoods differ from person to person, it may be true that "Little Saigon, Houston" may be both "independent" and "a part of Chinatown/Asiatown" at the same time, and that this differs based on agency/organization.

Previous discussion is in these places:

Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting case, coming from Seattle where we have a Chinatown, Japantown, and Little Saigon, all more officially part of the Chinatown–International District, Seattle, though we don't legally define neighborhood borders either. If the city does not officially define the districts, I think it's certainly fair to discuss what the media uses, especially since the Chronicle discusses multiple changing boundaries considered by locals. I'm wondering though if it may then be appropriate to merge e.g. Little Saigon, Houston into the International District (Greater Houston) article or some other combination among these, so as to better present related information together. It does seem weird though that International and Southwest appear to be the only management districts with articles: are these really neighborhoods of sorts that need their own pages listing schools, government buildings, and landmarks, or are they more just mechanisms for distributing localized funding? I don't like having duplicative articles on every layer of community planning. But yes, if some groups consider an area part of a neighborhood that's not in an arbitrary planning zone, it should be mentioned. Reywas92Talk 03:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: There are other management districts with articles: Downtown Houston, Midtown Houston (though it discusses the management district and the City-defined super neighborhood, which have mostly the same boundaires but not always), East End, Houston, East Downtown, Southeast Houston, and several others (too many to list). The full map of the Houston area's management districts are here - Management districts are described here WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed it since these are not linked in the left column of List_of_Houston_neighborhoods#Management_districts; I see the management districts and neighborhoods have some varying relationships to each other though. Anyway I'm not a fan of duplication and think overlapping of content about districts and neighborhoods should be minimized so readers don't have connected regional info spread on multiple articles, but thanks for your excellent work on this area and do continue to make clear the fluidity in these definitions! Reywas92Talk 04:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The question is whether the lead of the article should only mention definitions of Chinatown from local government bodies, or whether it should mention other definitions of Chinatown quoted by secondary sources such as newspapers."

I think there's a third alternative here: have a single, more vague description in the lead. The Lisa Gray article cited makes the point that "Chinatown" is at least partly a branding exercise. Though the article does not mention it, the Southwest Management District used to be called the Sharpstown Managment district, demonstrating that the managment districts are involved in branding areas themselves. In any case, I see no reason why the management district's definition of "Chinatown" should take precedence over others. The lead could describe Chinatown as "an area in far southwest Houston centered by part of the upper Bellaire Boulevard corridor, with many differing ideas about its boundaries and relationships to other neighborhoods." Just another option to consider. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: I'm happy with moving the specific details to a subsection. For the Third Ward I wrote Third Ward, Houston#Boundaries which gives the complexities involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is specific to the lead. I would rule out that only the management district's definition should be included in the lead. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some other Houston-area editors and other interested parties @Mike Schwartz: @Hourick: @Postoak: @Brianreading: @Another Believer: @Nsaum75: @Broadmoor: (User:RJN hasn't edited since 2017) to get more diverse feedback if desired. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be using most-commonly used definitions, especially those from reliable third-party sources. A government-only definition may be something useful at some point in the article though. Brian Reading (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that some consensus can be reached.
I agree with "some or all" of the suggestions above ... especially the "third alternative" mentioned in the last paragraph of the comments from "Oldsanfelipe2 (talk)" that are shown with a date/time stamp of "17:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)". IMHO moving some of the details to a different part of the article -- not trying to "do it all" in the lead -- probably makes sense. I also like the idea of mentioning -- (maybe even in the lede^H^H^H^H lead) -- the fact that there seem to be a variety of "differing ideas about its boundaries". Maybe there should even be a mention, there, of the fact that more details are given later, in a different part of the article.[reply]

I did not read all of "Third Ward, Houston#Boundaries" (which was mentioned by -- and, apparently, written or edited by -- "WhisperToMe" ... see e.g. the "18:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)" entry, above, here on this "Talk:" page); but ... the part about "They are cultural entities today, not legal entities" is an important point. Sometimes things change, and the definitions of "legal entities" -- (or other [more or less] "official" definitions) -- may or may not "keep up" promptly with some of the ('evolving') ways of using language.[reply]

("By the way":)
There is also a lot that could be said -- (but maybe not [all] here) -- about the extent to which documenting changes (e.g. over time, or from one group to another, or from one place to another) in the use of language ... may tend to be challenging, partly because some speakers (or authors) may feel free to choose their own favorite way of talking or writing ... which may be done with a lot or a little (or, no) regard for "official" pronouncements or edicts. (See e.g. the Quora section about the "difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar" ... at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-descriptive-and-prescriptive-grammar).

IMHO it is probably not the job of this Wikipedia article to mediate between multiple purveyors of "boundary definitions", nor to try to promote one definition over another. Helping readers to be able to learn what the possibilities are, (of what is meant, when someone uses a term, such as "Chinatown") would probably be useful ... especially if the details are relegated to a section which some [other] readers might want to SKIP, if they are less concerned with knowing the exact "boundaries".

Thanks for listening ... and/or, thanks for your patience (e.g. if some of this has been kinda << "TMI" >>.) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! BTW Mike I indeed wrote and edited that part :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super familiar with Houston, but as a matter of general principle, there's nothing about our policies that gives government authorities more weight than non-government authorities just because they're "official". In fact, in the case of strong local media, I'd say the latter sometimes carries more weight as a reliable source. Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinatown,_Houston&oldid=1221245233"