Talk:Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Older comments

What neighborhood is Stuyvesant Town located within? Gramercy? Lower East Side? "Middle East Side"? Wizard1022 06:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuy Town is really its own neighborhood. Its north of the East Village, south of Kips Bay, and east of Grammercy and Union Square. You'll see it associated with any of these areas, depending on who you ask or what map you look at. --BohicaTwentyTwo 21:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reading between the lines here, is there an interesting race angle to refer to here? if this is so successful of a project, I'd be interested in reading about the racial makeup of the residents vs. that of other similarly sized communities.

Movies filmed in Stuy Town

Surprised there is no section on the films and television shows that have used Stuy Town/Peter Cooper as a backdrop. The Barbers' apartment in Three Days Of The Condor is set in Peter Cooper^[1] and Judy Holliday and Aldo Ray play a divorcing Stuyvesant Town couple in The Marrying Kind.^[2] Then, of course, there's always Law & Order.Terrapin7 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

New York Times article

27 May 08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/nyregion/27stuyvesant.html?hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.32.30 (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Shouldn't Peter Cooper Village be merged into the Peter Cooper Village—Stuyvesant Town article? It does mention both complices. my name inc-Review me 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's do it. Pjrich (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, this should be merged with Stuy Town. The two complexes are inextricably connected, EVERYTHING that affects one affects the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.242.254 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Peter Cooper Village section, but I didn't find any information on Google for Peter Cooper Village. Thanks, my name inc 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines

Much of this article is written as a POV essay and in a tone similar to a newspaper or magazine and not a newspaper article. Additionally, it is filled with WP:DATED statements such as "recently." Before anyone edits Wikipedia, they have a responsibility to study the policies and guidelines, the gist of which appear at The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Please do not add POV essay material. State facts in a neutral tone without speculation and without unfooted personal knowledge which is not allowed. (Please see the policies I have bluelinked here.) Every stated fact must have a reliable-source citation. These are among the most basic Wikipedia rules. -- 96.246.118.73 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look around - you could spend all of your waking hours just removing unsourced material. And you're more than welcome to do so. Wknight94 ^talk 20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The punctuation in the title should be an en-dash and not em-dash. They are not the same thing. Wfgiuliano (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuyvesant Apartments

Were the Stuyvesant Apartments in there somewhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Stuyvesant Apartments have nothing whatsoever to do with Stuy-Town/Peter Cooper Village. They're totally unrelated. BMK (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Okay. Thanks. :) Oh, and thanks for the coords fix too. :)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't know if you're from the area or not, but there's loads of stuff all over NYC named after Peter Stuyvesant. BMK (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the other side of the planet, actually. :) I understand now. Before, I thought Rutherford was the big kahuna in the area and guessed everything was named after him. Then I learned about Peter. Any connection between Rutherford and Peter is still unclear. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Rutherford Stuyvesant was the great-great-great-grandson of Peter Stuyvesant, the son of Peter Gerard Stuyvesant (1778–1847) and his wife Hellen Rutherford, but I could be wrong about that. BMK (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Peter Stuyvesant article says: "The last direct descendant of Pieter Stuyvesant to bear his surname was Augustus van Horne Stuyvesant, Jr., who died a bachelor in 1953 at the age of 83 in his mansion at 2 East 79th Street. Rutherford Stuyvesant, the 19th century New York developer, and his descendants are also descended from Pieter Stuyvesant, however Rutherford Stuyvesant's name was changed from Stuyvesant Rutherford in 1863 to satisfy the terms of a will." citing Tauber, Gilbert. Letter to the editor New York Times (August 13, 1995). BMK (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is blocked here in China, so thanks for the quote. That's pretty solid. I will add it to the article. Thank you so much!

So, any thoughts on the mysterious painting? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. "Letter to the editor" That's not reliable enough, is it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size/layout of images in article could be improved.

Hello!

I made an edit removing the pixel size specifications for the images in the article, but it was reverted. However, I still think the hard-coded pixel size for the images should be removed, and a dynamic scaling one should be introduced instead. Fixed px sizes are generally discouraged (see: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size). The images are rendering too large for smaller screens like mine (see my screenshot on imgur)

Additionally, the two lead pictures in a horizontal gallery should be placed vertically, and the aerial photo could be placed elsewhere (maybe in a central panorama style layout). An alternative could be to combine these three images into a montage image (like the lead image in the article for New York City).--Harkain (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors with accounts can set their preferred thumbnaill size, so that the vast majority of our readers - who do not have accouints, do no benefit from this. This is why page layouts are required. The two picture are horizontal to equal the size of the larger picture underneath which needs to be significantly larger in order to see detail. We should never post pictures at a size which forces the reader to click through to actually see what the image is intended to show. If the reader wants to dclick through to see even more detail, that's another thing altogether, but the reader should get value from the picture as they are reading the article, and not have to interrupt their reading at random times. BMK (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using upright scaling factors (as linked in my previous entry) works for non-logged in users too. Images default to 220px for them, after which any scaling is applied. Therefore, by selecting the appropriate scaling factor you modify the size the image displays for all users. While I agree with your points regarding sufficient availability of detail at a glance, the lead image layout leaves unacceptable space for text for some users (see my screenshot in previous entry). I might be able to see the pictures in great detail, but reading the actual text of the article becomes more difficult. Hence my suggestion to move the aerial picture elsewhere, so that the two lead images do not need to be horizontal to fit its width.--Harkain (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes, see how it works for you. I moved the aerial shot to the top and reduced its size by about 15%. The other two shots are below it, but vertical instead of horizontal. Is your text still being squished? BMK (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aerial picture still squishes some of the text, but overall it is a lot more tolerable as only a small section is affected. Thank you. --Harkain (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took your other suggestion and moved the aerial picture down into thebody (where, IIRC, it once was). I presume this is better for you? BMK (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Charter"

Editor MuzikJunky is attempting to add an image of a plaque dedicated to Frederick H. Ecker on the occasion of his 80th birthday, calling it a "charter" for middle class housing. Howveer, the text of the plaque does not indicate this. It reads:

TO THE HONOR OF FREDERICK H. ECKER

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

WHO WITH THE VISION OF EXPERIENCE AND THE ENERGY OF YOUTH CONCEIVED AND BROUGHT INTO BEING THIS PROJECT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT THAT FAMILIES OF MODERATE MEANS MIGHT LIVE IN HEALTH, COMFORT AND DIGNITY IN PARKLIKE COMMUNITIES, AND THAT A PATTERN MIGHT BE SET OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE PRODUCTIVELY DEVOTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE

THIS PLAQUE WAS APRECTIONATELY INSCRIBED AND IS HERE PLACED ON THE OCCASION OF

HIS EIGHTIETH BIRTHDAY

BY THE FIELD ORGANIZATION OF METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

AUGUST 30, 1947

White the text does mention that the project was intended for "families of moserate means", it is not a "charter", simply a plaque placed in honor of the originator of the project.

The editor says this "charter stone", and two others like it were removed. Alansohn provided a source which does says that plaque (a single plaque) was quietly removed in 2001, but there is not mention in the source of two other plaques, and the current plaque is not described as a "charter". Muzik Junky is edit warring against the removals of both myself and Alansohn, and needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, the wording referring to the plaque as a "charter" is gone. The clear consensus is that the image and caption should stay, with the source provided. If you have concerns about the wording, raise your proposed changes here and get consensus before any further edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A plaque to the creator of the project is not significant enough to be at the top of the page. I will restore the version that I think i s approproate. Please look at it first, and don't simply knee-jerk react to it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, this is edit warring at its worst. Consensus is clear to put the image at the top of the page. You've bitched about the lack of a source, and it was added. You've moaned about the word "charter", and it was corrected. Now you're using the excuse that the image doesn't "belong" where consensus has put it. Don't dig a deeper grave for yourself. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So, the version I restored is not at the top, which gives it too much weight, but in the body of the article, where it is appropriate, The caption mentions "families of moderate means", and that the plaque was removed, using your citation. The fill text of the plaque is provided in a footnote, allowing the reader to see exactly what its purpose was, without characterizing it in any way. I think this gets the image in, gets the idea that the project was intended to be middle-class in (again - it's in the body of the article), and avoids the misleading "charter" language. I think this should satisfy all parties, except anyome who's attempting to use the plaque to make A POV comment. I would appreciate it if you would examine the article as it is closely. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be aboveboard about everything, I suddenly realized that a plaque placed on private property in 1947 is covered by copyright protection, so I have nominated the image in question at FFD. Anyone who wishes to can participate in the discussion at [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village. 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) 15:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone capital strike

Article from The Real Deal: here. — Mainly 15:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.awesomefilm.com/script/ThreeDaysoftheCondor.pdf

[2] ttp://us.vdc.imdb.com/title/tt0044888/locations

[1]

[2]