Talk:Harlem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

economic nationalism, etc.

I moved this here from the article because I think it's worth including on some page, just not the Harlem one.

From the 1920s through the 1960s, groups advocated the creation of a new nation, to be sponsored by the United States, for the benefit of blacks. This nation was typically expected to be in Africa, though some groups advocated the creation of a new country by the partitioning of southern U.S. states. In an important variation, some groups, including the Nation of Islam, called for economic nationalism, whereby a parallel black economy would be created, free from the perceived exploitation by whites. In this context, what would have been routine entrepreneurial activity, like the formation of Carver Federal Savings Bank in 1949, took on political, even nationalist, overtones. (The founders insisted on black leadership for the bank, a challenge, as no black bank executives existed for them to hire.) Since the 1920s, various groups have demanded reparation payments to be made to black Americans; this demand is still heard in Harlem today.

Uucp 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it's too much for a page that is already packed. --futurebird 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

People photos

I think that pics of harlem citizens might better illustrate this GOOD article. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( shout! · sign? )} 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

User Emerson7 has been repeatedly moving footnotes to the end of sentences, even if they do not apply to the entire sentence, claiming this to be the proper placement under the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In fact, the editor is mistaken. The guide to footnotes says:

"Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers."

Therefore, the correct placement is clearly after the specific terms or phrases to which the notes refer, as they had been originally placed here, not at the ends of the sentences. This is not a small point; the sentences in question contain multiple assertions of fact, and the footnotes in question back only certain facts in the sentences. By putting the footnotes at the end of the sentence, Emerson7 incorrectly suggests that we have citations for more facts than we really do.

I am reverting all of Emerson7's footnote changes. Uucp 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

hmmm...it's interesting that you didn't quote the entire section..entitled “Place ref tags after punctuation”.

Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.

When placed at the end of a clause or sentence, the ref tag should be placed directly after the punctuation mark, without an intervening space. The exception is a dash — which should follow the ref tag. This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.

Example:

According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big;<ref>Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
however, the moon is not so big.<ref>Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 46(78):46.</ref>

== Notes ==
<references/>

the above is the exact qoute of wp:foot#Place ref tags after punctuation. your opinion is noted....but i'm sorry, you're just wrong, and i would ask that you stop reverting my corrections. perhaps a mediator is appropriate? --emerson7 | Talk 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User Uucp is using his footnotes correctly, at the end of the fact, term or phrase. The punctuation rule only applies when there is punctuation at the end of a fact, term or phrase.

Emerson7 is correct about the comma edits 2,12,15,6.

Uucp is correct about the phrase locations, 9 and 26. --Knulclunk 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I have no opinion on the "comma" edits; they may have been reversed accidentally in the course of the edit war over footnote placement. I'll put those back to Emerson7's preferred style. The footnotes however must stay by the facts they verify. Anything else is, at best, confusing, and, at worst, dishonest. Emerson7 reads WP:FOOT to say that all footnotes must follow punctuation, but the rules do not require this. As Knulclunk points out, the rules require only that the footnotes follow punctuation in those cases that punctuation exists. As Emerson7 quotes above, "When placed at the end of a clause or sentence, the ref tag should be placed directly after the punctuation mark." This does not require us to put footnotes at the end of a sentence or clause; it merely tells us how to format them in those cases when we do.

On my personal talk page, Emerson7 makes a further appeal to "centuries of precedent," which seems to me somewhat less important in this case than the WP:FOOT guidelines, and much less important than the intellectual honesty of applying footnotes only to the facts they verify. And per my early suggestion to editor Emerson7, I would be delighted to bring in a formal mediator if s/he has found this discussion unconvincing.Uucp 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

---

since our last correspondence there have been several corrections returning the text back to my wp:foot guidelines edits and only a two remain.

2.2 The arrival of African Americans
His company, the Afro-American Realty Company, was almost single-handedly responsible for migration of blacks from their previous neighborhoods,^[6] the Tenderloin, San Juan Hill (now the site of Lincoln Center), and Hell's Kitchen in the west 40s and 50s.^[7][8] The move to northern Manhattan was driven in part by fears that anti-black riots such as those that had occurred in the Tenderloin in 1900^[9] and in San Juan Hill in 1905^[3] might recur. In addition, a number of tenements that had been occupied by blacks in the west 30s were destroyed at this time to make way for the construction of the original Penn Station.

2.4 Recent history
Finally, wealthier New Yorkers, having gentrified every other part of Manhattan and much of Brooklyn, had nowhere else to go. The number of housing units in Harlem increased 14% between 1990 and 2000^[26] and the rate of increase has been much more rapid in recent years. Property values in Central Harlem increased nearly 300% during the 1990s, while the rest of the City saw only a 12% increase.^[26]

in my understanding of wp:foot, and the 'chicago manual of style', these references should be located at the end of the nearest punctutation...in the this case, at the end of the sentence. although i sympathise, and have great respect for uupc's desire for 'intellectual honesty', if the reference tags are structured properly, with citations of page, paragraph, other relevant information, all ambiguity is clarified. the template:cite web, for example, has 22 fields designed for just that purpose. further, a complete explanation of the citation can be included with the tag to specify exactly what the editor intends.

though i completely understand the necessity for 'nearest punctuation clause', in my personal opinion, mid sentence tags make for difficult, distracted reading and should be completely avoided if possible. i favour the placement of properly formatted, well cited ref tags at the end of the sentence or thought. --emerson7 | Talk 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern boundary

Does anyone have a source on Harlem's northern boundary? I'm seeing a lot of different estimates on the web... not vastly differing ones, but each off a few streets from each other. Does New York City have "official" boundaries for neighborhoods? I live in the area and 155th seems slightly too far south. No one would consider the area below the hill but north of 155th to be in Washington Heights, although perhaps above the hill that might be the case. Just wondering who decides these things... 68.161.31.243 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A link to Renaissance

This morning I changed the internal link on "renaissance" in the first paragraph to point to the Harlem Renaissance. User Uucp reverted. I will happily yield to a major and frequent contributor, but just want to pose (to Uucp and others) the following question once. Does it not seem more likely that a reader here would expect further discussion regarding the cultural and artistic revival in Harlem, than an unrelated (though analogous) period in European history? Hult041956 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. Harlem Renaissance is already linked in the appropriate historical section, and in fact has its own page. Nobody coming to the Harlem page looking for information about the Harlem Renaissance will go away frustrated. The introduction, however, does not refer to the outpouring of arts in Harlem in the early-mid 20th century. It uses the word renaissance in its purely technical meaning of "rebirth." If you wanted to remove the link entirely, I would support that, as the current link is of minimal relevance. However, I think that changing it to the Harlem Renaissance would not improve things. Uucp 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the link entirely, per WP:OVERLINK.--Knulclunk 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And I concur. Removing the link would be a small improvement. Uucp, I agree with you there's no issue of disappointment from lack of relevant information. My own reaction when reading the article the first time was that the jump to European history was non apropos. So I immediately jumped back, thinking "that's weird." It's a small point. But thanks for hearing me out. Hult041956 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

done. Uucp 13:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the introductory paragraph from "renaissance" to "gentrification". Renaissance paints a rosy picture of the situation, as gentrification is more descriptive. "Gentrification" is used later in the article, including "Finally, wealthier New Yorkers, having gentrified every other part of Manhattan and much of Brooklyn, had nowhere else to go." Gentrification isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a more descriptive adjective. --67.84.207.247 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

116th Street - Le Petit Senegal

Little Senegal along 116th has an article now. Should it be linked in somewhere? It doesn't have the history of the older neighborhoods, but it is sourced and encyclopedic. --Knulclunk 04:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You can if you want to, but I wouldn't bother. I have lived in Harlem for years, currently near to the area that the "Little Senegal" article describes, and I have never heard anybody use the term "little senegal". Though there are west african restaurants and stores selling african goods in the area, the number seems to be decreasing as the area gentrifies. Uucp 01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the term, though admittedly not around the neighborhood. The External Links in the Little Senegal article seem solid about both the term and the growth. I will link them into the Little Senegal article and reword the language a bit. It should get at least a passing sentence in the Harlem article, even if to just link into to over there. I'll do a little research first (always a good idea!) Thank you again for all your efforts! --Knulclunk 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that most of the articles on the "Petite Senegal" page, while saying "gee, there are a lot of people from West Africa living around 116th Street," never use the term "Petite Senegal." It reads to me like the pet term of a couple of NYT reporters (the term did appear in the two NYT stories on the page, and perhaps only there). And while some of the articles say "there are more west africans here than there used to be," none of them claim or present any evidence to back the idea that the use of the term is increasing. Uucp 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the term "growing" and replaced it with real numbers from the articles. (6,500 as of 2005). As far as "pet term of NYT reporters"... maybe so. I see that it has few Google hits and seems to be suffering from that circular Wiki-self reference problem. --Knulclunk 14:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there is an issue that may need to be addressed.

• The lead doesn't adequately summarise the article. It should be expanded to around three paragraphs to adequately cover each section of the article.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 09:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As no improvements have been made, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Morningside Heights is not Harlem

In the 19th century, Harlem was broadly defined and included Morningside Heights. The neighborhoods became distinct in the early 20th century and authoritative sources since the 1920s or 1930s describe them as separate communities. See, for example, The Encyclopedia of New York edited by Kenneth Jackson, states clearly that Harlem is bordered to the west by Morningside Avenue -- in other words, it includes none of Morningside Heights. Also, Michael Henry Adams's Harlem Lost and Found, which excludes Morningside Heights, Pinkney & Woock's Power and Politics in Harlem similarly excludes Morningside Heights. I can list additional texts if you like.

Your argument that (1) they are "demographically similar" seems irrelevant. Philadelphia is demographically similar to Manhattan, that doesn't make them the same city. (2) The blog by the woman who isn't sure what neighborhood she lives in seems like odd support for your argument, and (3) your New York Times article about people in Morningside Heights who don't like it when people call their neighborhood "Harlem" seems to boost my side more than yours. Uucp (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)