Talk:Manhattan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	NYC Portal This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manhattan article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Manhattan was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 22 September 2006

	To-do list for Manhattan:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
copyedit Get to 30 inline references Renominate for GA semiprecious mineral deposits (discovered while creating the subway system) a mention that Central Park is thoroughly landscaped and therefore not representative of Manhattan's pre-urban terrain. Lead: "Manhattan is both the Island of Manhattan and also the Borough of Manhattan ..." Not quite. Starting off with this sort of easily disprovable (and easily correctable) statement is not good. It's even worse when the map right next to it disproves the assertion. It's horrendous when this is in the article text as well. History section: First, it needs to be subdivided some. I realize it's summing up what's over at History of New York City, but you have over ten paragraphs straight there. Second is, yes, sourcing. If I read an article with direct quotations from 17th-century sources, I want to be satisfied that whoever put them there can tell me where they came from. If they're in the main History article, they should be here, too. It's not enough to incorporate them by implied reference. Statements that should be sourced but are not: "a phenomenon sometimes referred to as Manhattanhenge (by analogy with Stonehenge)" By who? "... the Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States"; And again, "Manhattan is one of the highest-income places in the United States with a population greater than 1 million. The Manhattan zipcode 10021, on the Upper East Side, is home to more than 100,000 people and has a per capita income of over $90,000." Culture. "Manhattan has been the scene of many important American cultural movements." Agreed. But then why the segue into the protests after the Triangle Factory fire? First, it's a social or political movement; and second, even if you accept it as a cultural movement it's not the first one that comes to mind (later the Harlem Renaissance is mentioned ... I could also think of the Ash Can School, the Beat Generation and a few other things first). Politics and government: I think you could have a little bit more here. How about the tensions between Manhattan and the outer boroughs due to the former being so disproportionately wealthy and populous and thus getting its way all the time? You know, the way Queens and Staten Island resent Manhattan the way the rest of the country resents New York? An excellent place to mention Lindsay and the snowstorm (it's not in the Lindsay article, which is amazing considering it did him in politically), if nothing else. Also, we have a nice picture of ... Robert Morgenthau, the current district attorney. I would expect a picture of the borough president would be a better choice. Is Mr. Stringer that camera-shy? Transportation: The one-sentence grafs at the end of the section need to be better integrated into the rest of the section. "The world-renowned City University of New York (CUNY) ..." A peacock term. Change it or source it.

Contents 1 Very Beginning of Article 2 Neighborhood list 3 Difficult to understand the beginning sentences 4 Demographics 5 Uptown/downtown 6 Etymology? 7 Sunrise/Sunset? 8 Photo arrangement 9 Place of Intoxication? 10 Henry Hudson discovery and 9/11 11 Start of urban exodus in Manhattan 12 Location diagram 13 Mannados 14 Additional map 15 Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 16 US and UK English 17 Need geographic region maps 18 Travel to Staten Island 19 Densely populated county 20 On the arrangement 21 Orientation of 1660 Map 22 $ 600-700 American 23 GA nomination 23.1 Failure 24 Largest system by mileage? 25 $24 myth 26 Who Owns Manhattan 27 Prince, Manhattan 28 Culture and the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire 29 New panorama available

[edit] Very Beginning of Article

Someone is being either hateful or just immature. The very beginning of the article starts with a Pulitzer-worthy sentence: "Omg, like manhattan is teh biggest and ^rettiest city in the world ^^"

Wow. I have been trying to wipe the ignorance off of the page but my computer is giving me issues. If someone could fix that I would really appreciate it.

Thanks a bunch.

~Mark

[edit] Neighborhood list

Added list of neighborhoods. I propose we put neighborhoods under the city as in city/neighborhood, as some of these won't merit big entries and others (e.g., soho, financial district) are at least somewhat ambiguous with other cities. -User:K.lee

Subpages are deprecated. We'd need to have titles like "Soho (New York)" or "Inwood (Manhattan)". )"Inwood (New York City)" would do, but there's at least one other Inwood in the state, in Nassau County--I've stopped telling people I live in Inwood because then I have to explain that no, I don't live on the Island.)

I'm inclined to delink the neighborhoods for now, and just write short descriptions under the neighborhood headers. Any that get long or complicated can be pulled out. Vicki Rosenzweig

And while I'm on the subject, does anyone not a real estate developer actually talk about "Nolita"?Vicki Rosenzweig

Ha. Evidently the Times does (did you see the Magazine this past week?). As you can see from my history I haven't done much wikipedia-ing. This neighborhood-izing edit was part of my being bold. The slash business was a bad idea, but I do think disambiguation will pay off in the long run. I am fixing the links to use something more readable like the Soho, London, England entry for now. -k.lee

---

Can we have defs for the meanings of "uptown" and "downtown", please?

• Done. -- Cjmnyc 04:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult to understand the beginning sentences

"New York County and the Borough of Manhattan are coextensive. As a part of New York City, New York County contains no other political subdivisions."

I have never been to New York, but I am doing my reading and hoping to go soon.

I find the sentences in quotes above to be unintelligible. What does "coextensive" mean? Surely there is a reasonable word or phrase that can be used in place of "coextensive".

Does the second sentence mean that the boundary of NY City is the same as the boundry of NY County? If not, what does it mean?

Thanks, Don Bailey Denver March 14, 2004

• "New York County" and the "Borough of Manhattan" are separate political entities with identical borders. If that's any clearer<G>. Manhattan is only one part of New York City. Manhattan is coterminous/coextensive with New York County, not New York City. The "County" is smaller than the "City", admittedly rather a confusing thing! As a visitor, you'll never need the terms "New York County" or "Borough of Manhattan", you'll just refer to it as "Manhattan". -- Nunh-huh 05:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • "Manhattan" in common usage refers to the island of Manhattan, not to the political boundaries, so I think this is where the confusion comes in. In books, movies, magazine articles and everyday speech, when one hears Manhattan, one is almost always hearing a reference to the island with that name. When the political entity is referenced, it is called "the borough of Manhattan", whose boundaries are, as you say, identical with the boundaries of New York County. This includes Marble Hill, Roosevelt Island and other islands. (I'm quite sure that many locals don't even know this -- I've known residents of Manhattan Island who don't even know the name of the county in which they reside.)

• • People in the "outer boroughs" very often refer to the island of Manhattan as "The City", adding further to the confusion. Manhattan Island once was, indeed, the entirety of the City of New York. Consolidation of what is today the City of New York began in 1898 and even then the political boundaries were different than they are today.

• • The section of City law that defines the borough of Manhattan is below:

• • § 2-202 Division into boroughs and boundaries thereof. The city of New

 York   is   hereby   divided   into  five  boroughs  to  be  designated,
 respectively: Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
   1.  The borough of Manhattan shall consist of the territory  known  as
 New York county which shall contain all that part of the city and state,
 including  that  portion  of  land  commonly  known  as  Marble Hill and
 included within the county of New York and borough of Manhattan for  all
 purposes  pursuant  to  chapter  nine hundred thirty-nine of the laws of
 nineteen hundred eighty-four and further including  the  islands  called
 Manhattan  Island,  Governor's  Island,  Bedloe's  Island, Ellis Island,
 Franklin D.  Roosevelt  Island,  Randall's  Island  and  Oyster  Island,
 bounded  by  the  following  described  line: Beginning at the northerly
 United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river at the junction  of  the
 Hudson and Harlem rivers; thence along the northerly and easterly United
 States  bulkhead  lines of the Harlem river to the low-water mark on the
 westerly bank of the Spuyten Duyvil creek as it  existed  prior  to  its
 being  filled  in;  thence  along  said low-water mark of Spuyten Duyvil
 creek to the easterly United States bulkhead line of the  Harlem  river;
 thence  southerly  along the easterly United States bulkhead line of the
 Harlem river to a point where said United States bulkhead  line  of  the
 Harlem river intersects the northerly United States bulkhead line of the
 Bronx  kills;  thence  along  the  northerly  line  of the United States
 bulkhead line of the Bronx kills to the intersection  of  the  northerly
 United  States  bulkhead  line of the East river; thence across the East
 river to the low-water mark on the  shore  of  Long  Island,  so  as  to
 include  Randall's  Island and Ward's Island; thence along the low-water
 mark on the shore of Long Island to the  southerly  side  of  Red  Hook;
 thence  across  the  Upper  bay  to  the westerly boundary of the state;
 thence northerly along such westerly boundary of the state  to  a  point
 where  a  perpendicular  drawn  from  the  point  or  place of beginning
 intersects such westerly boundary of the state;  thence  easterly  along
 such perpendicular to the point or place of beginning; including all the
 islands or parts thereof situated within the aforedescribed bounds.

(ADC - New York City Administrative Code, Title 2, "Boundaries of the City" http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS )

ScottyFLL 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I've heard that although Manhattan has 1M people residential, it has 30M employees working there. Does anyone have the facts to back that up, as I think it would be nice in the article. Additionally, Brooklyn is described as "it would be the 4th largest city," and I'd like to see a comparison like that--for example comparing Manhattan to whole other states.

[edit] Uptown/downtown

In Manhattan, uptown means north and downtown means south

Not quite. Manhattan has a concept of "north on the grid" (of streets), which is different from due north (or magnetic north, for that matter). As the map shows, Manhattan is a long, narrow island; most streets are laid out parallel or perpendicular to the long sides of the island. Going northeast along a long street is called going "north on the grid" (or just "north", more commonly). Uptown means north on the grid, and downtown means south on the grid. —msh210 22:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Technically, Msh210, you're right. But, seriously, who thinks "north" in Manhattan means due north?

[edit] Etymology?

I was under the impression that manhattan's etymology came from a corruption of the word Manahachtanienk--"the island where we became intoxicated", so named by the indians because they got drunk there by white settlers in 1524 or 16(09|04|05)--every site I go to features a different date. Other Internet sites say "high island". Which ones right, or, failing that, shouldn't there be some indication as to the disputed origin? --Combuchan 23:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, noone really knows the correct etymology. Those two are the main "theories", although I think there are also a couple of other possible interpretations. I added an alternate etymology of "place of intoxication" into the article, but I imagine the reference to a specific drunken party the name is supposed to refer to is probably even more dubious than an essentially unknowable etymology.--Pharos 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read somewhere that this was an interpretation of the Lenape document Walum Olum or of a sequel to the Walum Olum, as noted in some book entitled Red Record, or something like that. — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)

[edit] Sunrise/Sunset?

The article states "On 28 May and 12 July the sunrise and sunset are aligned with the street gridlines, so that the Sun is visible at the horizon from street level." Does anyone have a source for this? The sunset part seems particularly implausible, as Manhattan streets generally run from northwest(ish) to southeast(ish). I could see where the sunrise might be aligned on (approximately) those dates, which are roughly equidistant (equitemporal?) from the vernal equinox.

Just wondering.... -- uFu

What you're talking about is called the sunrise/sunset azimuth, which is the observed angle (equivalent to compass directions) of the sun at the point at which it crosses the horizon.

Let's check out the facts: first off, alignment of both sunrise/sunset with the grid cannot happen on the same day, so you have to look at each separately. Since Manhattan North is approximately 29 degrees east of north, the sunset azimuth to align with the grid would be approximately 299 degrees (since 270 is due west by convention, with values increasing clockwise). Likewise sunrise azimuth to align with the grid would be approximately 119 degrees (90 degrees is due east).

If you go to the U.S. Navy's site, it will calculate the solar altitude/azimuth tables for you, showing the values at various times throughout the day for any location/date. The sunset azimuth is (by definition) the value of the azimuth (2nd column) when the solar altitude (1st column) is zero while crossing from positive to negative. Conversely the sunrise azimuth is the value when the altitude is zero, crossing from negative to positive.

Using the form they provided, I entered New York, NY and then experimented with various dates. If I enter in May 28 or July 12, I see that the azimuth at sunset is approximately 299 degrees, which means those dates are accurate for the sunset alignment (on July 12 it happens around 19:20, if you want to check for yourself).

You can verify that sunrise/sunset alignments definitely do not occur on the same day. On July 12, for example, the sunrise azimuth is around 59 degrees (in the NE part of the sky).

I did some experimenting and found that for that New York City, I get sunrise azimuth of 119 degrees on/around December 6 and January 12. Those may be off by a day or so. -- Decumanus 19:15, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Got my astronomical terminology confused. I meant to say that the two dates given straddle the summer solstice, not the equinox.

So the article is actually wrong. I'll dig around on the USNO site, and fix it.

Thanks for the info. uFu 23:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

error: "On May 28 and July 12 the sunrise and sunset are aligned with the street grid lines, so that the sun is visible at the horizon from street level." This statement is still incorrect. The sun may be visible on the said dates only when setting in the west. The corresponding rising dates in the east would be around the winter solstice (approx. 6-months from the setting dates), since the 'east-west' street grid points to the southeast. The sun does not rise in the southeast during May and July. I don't have the exact dates, but a cursory calculation for the said setting dates seems accurate. I will remove the word sunrise from the article, but it would be nice if someone with the proper calculation software could add the correct rise dates. J. Crocker 18:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's taken me a year, but here's what I've got. According to this page, the approximate deviation of Manhattan avenues from true north is +28.9. By the foregoing discussion, that gives us a sunrise azimuth of 118.9, and a sunset azimuth of 298.9. Using a little trial-and-error here to determine when the sun's altitude is zero when its azimuth equals these values, I get dates for 2006 of Jan 11 and Dec 2 for the sunrise, and May 25 and Jul 17 for the sunset. That should be accurate to within one minute and 1/10 of a degree. uFu 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Article should mention that the island was bought from a neighboring tribe, and not the ones Manhattan belonged to (The Choctaws).

[edit] Photo arrangement

Anyone like the new photo arrangement? I myself was looking at getting the Times Square one full right, but server was acting up, so I gave up. Now I see somebody put all photos at top.--JimWae 19:16, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

• I hope everyone likes what I did - there are no more large gaps in the text caused by the photos, and I made them all the same width for a more professional look. I like the fact that there are a lot of great photos in the article, but this can cause weird layout issues. Paradiso 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On my screen (1600x1200), ALL the photos are up top and the first paragraph is squeezed into 8% of the screen width on the left. After that there are no more photos. Maybe try putting them all in one table no wider than the widest jpg --JimWae 20:13, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

I fixed it for me - photos were NOT inside table before

"  {| align =right
"  | [[Image:xxx.jpg|right
"  |- 
"  |...

--JimWae 20:24, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

I didn't notice the table wasn't done right because on my screen (1440 x 900) all the pics looked fine -- all were along the right side (I think its a browser issue?). Thanks for fixing it, now I know I have to look more carefully when I do tables Paradiso 21:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place of Intoxication?

The first sentence under the history section states...

"The name Manhattan ("hilly island" or "place of intoxication") is..."

Is this really true and not vandalism?

Thanks. -Short Verses 05:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's one possible origin of the name; noone's really sure which is the correct explanation (though one would tend to think "hilly island" is a little more straightforward). See the discussion titled 'Etymology?' above.--Pharos 07:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Feh, Staten Island is hillier. — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 02:38 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Hudson discovery and 9/11

According to [1], Hudson sailed into NY harbor on sept. 3 and began exploring the hudson river on sept. 12. There's no reason to say that Sept. 11 is a proper exact date for Hudson's "discovery" of New York. Also, Verrazano and Gomez most likely observed the coastline of the island (though perhaps without realizing it was an island) in their earlier visits to New York Harbor. Lastly, it's not clear, from the sources I can find, whether Hudson ever made landfall on Manhattan island itself... need help from someone who knows better. k.lee 17:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, that link you cite says explicitly that September 11 was the day Hudson entered Upper New York Bay (which is the first real chance to see Manhattan), and that on that night he anchored off Manhattan Island.--Pharos 17:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I "corrected" that bit as best as I could see. Is there any disagreement?--Pharos 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He was likely born in England (sailed both for England and Dutch East India Company). England still used the Julian calendar then, need to check on when Dutch transitioned, so getting the exact date will be tricky. Where is the link? --JimWae 17:56, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• According to http://www.norbyhus.dk/calendar.html, different parts of The Netherlands switched to New Style calendar before & after his journey --JimWae 18:12, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• • I really don't think theres any dispute that he was an Englishman (some people are just confused about him flying under different flags). The link is just the one k.lee gave above, [2]--Pharos 18:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Start of urban exodus in Manhattan

Hi,

According to the census bureau, Manhattan population reached a peak in 1910 with 2,762,522 inhabitants, and then decreased to 2,284,103 in 1920 and 1,698,281 in 1960. But the article claims that the white flight started only in the 60s. It seems to be obviousliy wrong, according to the table in the demographic section. It seems obvious that white flight started in the 1910s in Manhattan (mainly to the outer borough), and in the 50s in the outer boroughs. --Revas 23:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Good question. The migrations from say, the Lower East Side to Brooklyn and the Bronx were not "white flight". They were simply movements of people who had moved up a notch socioeconomically and were able to leave the crowded slums of Lower Manhattan. There wasn't the racial element to this that was involved in the "white flight" of the 60s.--Pharos 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. So maybe we can put something like : After reaching a peak before WWI, Manhattan started to see its population plumeting, mainly because of the stop of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and the move of people who could escape the island slums to the outer boroughs.--Revas 01:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Location diagram

The diagram labeled "Manhattan Borough lies between the East River and the Hudson River." doesn't help one unfamiliar with the geography. Usually bright colors identify what is labeled, suggesting that Manhattan is the yellow or blue areas. (SEWilco 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Mannados

Around the 17th century, Manhattan was called Mannados. Does anyone know more details? Please add this to the article. Thanks, Scriberius 07:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Manhattan was not called Mannados. The map on this site is almost quite certain a fake one. The Dutch called the island (certified document, known as the Van Schagen letter) already "Manhattans". Mannados has a real latin feel to it, doesn't it?

[edit] Additional map

In case anyone feel like using it, I found a map over Manhattan from circa 1850: . Am currently using it in the Central Park article, so just wanted to let the folks associated with this article know about it... Bjelleklang - talk 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8

Paragraphs 6 ,7 & 8 of the History section seem to ramble on with poor structure and require citations for those quotes. Any discussion of the history of individual liberties in New York City should include discussion of the slave trade (one of the major businesses before the civil war) and be more NPOV, or not be there at all (and be in the entry for New York City history, rather than Manhattan). I'd like to solicit some discussion about these paragraphs and how they can be improved before any substantive edits are made (having already changed "our nation" to "United States").

Robbins 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US and UK English

I noticed that this edit [[3]] involved changing honored to honoured. Doesn't that violate the policy on regional uses of English? Manhattan is, after all, an American subject. Sumergocognito 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I just reverted the anon. His/Her memory of the Glorious Revolution was a bit sketchy besides the improper spelling and what looked like a POV thing. Sumergocognito 06:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need geographic region maps

I think this and the articles about specific regions of Manahattan would hugely benefit from maps. --DanDanRevolution 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel to Staten Island

My edit regardind travel to Staten Island has been removed by an anonymous. I reverted it. The original text before my edit makes impression that there are problems with travel to Staten Island by car, because there is no bridge to Staten Island. I fixed that impression. If somebody beleives that this edit is useless - that is his/her personal POV. --HenryS 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Densely populated county

Please stop the edit war. If a county is the most densely populated county in the USA, it is the most densely populated county in any part of the USA. Period. --HenryS 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous user's explanation for his revert was not correct, as New York City is not the same as the New York Metropolitan Area. I reverted for that reason. It was not apparent to me that the user even read or understood the sentence, so I reverted. If someone else wishes to change the wording, they are welcome to, as you have already done. A simple "removed redundancy" in the edit description would have been sufficient (and in contrast to the previous user's edit description, accurate). I see your point and will not attempt to change that sentence.

However, your version constitutes yet a third version of the sentence, not a restoration of the original version. That's fine by me. However, accusations of an edit war do not breed good will with other Wikipedians, nor does your curt tone ("Period." (as if you are THE final authority on the matter)). If you have concluded that this is indeed an "edit war", then since you have provided a third version (and not a restoration), an outside observer would most likely conclude that you are participating in the "edit war". Therefore, I don't think it is in anybody's best interests to make these charges. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the wording by the previous user, who used the fake Id for unknown reason

1. Neither you nor me is THE final authority in the case. The Math is. If a county has the highest rate among the US counties, it has the highest rate among counties of any part of the US (including NY State, or NY Metropolitain Area, East Coast or whatever you wish).
2. There is NOTHING related to the population of New York County. Please make sure, that the term population density is NOT the same as the term population. There is nothing related to New York Meropolitain Area definition as well.
3. It was technically much easier to edit directly, than to restore the distant edit, while keeping the futher ones. I just did so. I apologize, if that insulted somebody.
4. Regarding edit wars. I was against that particar war, because the authors, who used words "X is the most Y in the US and in (any part of the US)" fight not against other editors but against The Math, which is the absolute truth in our Universe. So this war must be stopped by the truth and that is beyond any discusion and multiply points of view.
5. Finaly. It is my strong belief, that we are here to provide the true information in the Wikipedia articles, not to chat around. Again, the Wikipedia is about knowledge not about the editor's Ego. The article is everything, the chat and personal ambitions are nothing. Thank you --HenryS 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the arrangement

For some unknown reason a user signed with fake Id Ufwuct made a not-just-two-clicks-job to rearrange items in this discussion, according the rule (s)he prefers. The timestamp for this change was 20:42, 9 July 2006. I would not strongly oppose this kind of arrangement. But I have a reasonable questions:
It is the part of the Wiki Bulletin Board common rules to put newer items on the top. See for example [4]

Should we follow other than the common WikiBB arrangement style for this particular discussion? If yes, why?

Thank you --HenryS 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To follow up on your inquiry, please see this page. (I'm not clear on the rationale for the posting at the top at the bulletin board, but perhaps they want to make new announcements the most prominent.) Also, on this talk page, new topics are posted at the bottom. I've made the same mistake before (posting at the top of talk pages) and it's not too big of a deal, so don't worry about it. Ufwuct 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orientation of 1660 Map

Do I understand correctly that the first map in the History section is set with North to the right? That's confusing...it isn't the "usual" way and isn't the way the other maps on the page are oriented. If there's a reason, that's fine to do it that way, but then the orientation should be mentioned in the caption. DMacks 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $ 600-700 American

Allthough these number have a citation, I doubt their validity. Current US$ 600-700 would mean an average inflation of roughly 1 % over the whole period. whereas an average inflation of 2% (still low, but more likely) would result in a modern day equivalent of US$ 10,000+. That number is more in line with what I remember reading most often. --Lokimaros 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

Since this is a new listing I'll post a comment rather than passing or failing the article: line citations are pretty thin for an article of this length and it's troubling to see this categorized with articles having invalid ISBN numbers. As a former Manhattanite I'm pleased with the presentation as a whole - I especially looked for the bit about a small part of Manhattan being contiguous with the Bronx. Was hoping for other mentions in the geography section about semiprecious mineral deposits (discovered while creating the subway system) and a mention that Central Park is thoroughly landscaped and therefore not representative of Manhattan's pre-urban terrain. Mostly though, what stopped me from awarding GA was citations. Please continue to improve. Durova 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with more citations this could easily be a FA candidate, so GA seems inappropriate here. TimVickers 03:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it should be allowed, like any other article, to go through GA evaluation on its way to FA. Judgesurreal777 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of disallowing this, I just feel this article is so good that making it GA would be undervaluing it. I'll make this GA if you feel it is appropriate, but you could easily submit this for FA with just a few more citations. TimVickers 14:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it is GA though, please pass it. I am going to keep working on this article till it gets to FA, but for now I want it to achieve this quality distinction. And when I add more references, then I'll submit it :). Also, if you pass it, you can give some suggestions. Judgesurreal777 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid I forgot about this article and didn't check back onto this talk page. User:Daniel Case now seems to have removed its nomination from the GA listings but not put any feedback here or changed this article's Candidate tag. Perhaps this was a mistake. I've drooped him a note on his talk page. TimVickers 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure

No, Tim, it wasn't. I was in the midst of writing this out when I got your message. Then we got into an edit conflict when I tried to save.

Judging from the above discussion and this talk page in general, I'm going to make a lot of people unhappy by doing this, but here goes:

• Lede: "Manhattan is both the Island of Manhattan and also the Borough of Manhattan ..." Not quite. Starting off with this sort of easily disprovable (and easily correctable) statement is not good. It's even worse when the map right next to it disproves the assertion. It's horrendous when this is in the article text as well.

• History section: First, it needs to be subdivided some. I realize it's summing up what's over at History of New York City, but you have over ten paragraphs straight there.

  Second is, yes, sourcing. If I read an article with direct quotations from 17th-century sources, I want to be satisfied that whoever put them there can tell me where they came from. If they're in the main History article, they should be here, too. It's not enough to incorporate them by implied reference.

• Statements that should be sourced but are not: "a phenomenon sometimes referred to as Manhattanhenge (by analogy with Stonehenge)" By who? "... the Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States"; And again, "Manhattan is one of the highest-income places in the United States with a population greater than 1 million. The Manhattan zipcode 10021, on the Upper East Side, is home to more than 100,000 people and has a per capita income of over $90,000."

• Culture. "Manhattan has been the scene of many important American cultural movements." Agreed. But then why the segue into the protests after the Triangle Factory fire? First, it's a social or political movement; and second, even if you accept it as a cultural movement it's not the first one that comes to mind (later the Harlem Renaissance is mentioned ... I could also think of the Ash Can School, the Beat Generation and a few other things first).

• Politics and government: I think you could have a little bit more here. How about the tensions between Manhattan and the outer boroughs due to the former being so disproportionately wealthy and populous and thus getting its way all the time? You know, the way Queens and Staten Island resent Manhattan the way the rest of the country resents New York? An excellent place to mention Lindsay and the snowstorm (it's not in the Lindsay article, which is amazing considering it did him in politically), if nothing else.

  Also, we have a nice picture of ... Robert Morgenthau, the current district attorney. I would expect a picture of the borough president would be a better choice. Is Mr. Stringer that camera-shy?

• Transportation: The one-sentence grafs at the end of the section need to be better integrated into the rest of the section.

• "The world-renowned City University of New York (CUNY) ..." A peacock term. Change it or source it.

I can see you have, on the whole, a very fine article here. You should not be discouraged from entertaining visions of a golden star in the upper right hand corner. It has all the pieces; they just need to be better put together.

And this is New York we're talking about. This article has to be able to make it anywhere.

You can easily fix this and renominate at your lesiure. Daniel Case 03:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest system by mileage?

According to the data in the citation, the NYC subway system has less miles of track than london.--Rotten 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $24 myth

In other articles, the $24 claim is called a "legend" or "not particularly meaningful" (e.g., Peter Minuit) both because the natives didn't think they were "selling" anything and because there were no American dollars until the end of the 18th century. This myth needs to be properly explained rather than propagated. If no one with better knowledge of the history steps forward, I guess I'll change it using my rather limited knowledge of the subject (gleaned mainly from sources like Wikipedia and backed up by common sense). Until then, I'll put up a contradict-other tag. Calbaer 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They bought it from the natives for things that, if American dollars existed back then, would be worth $24. Samuel 69105 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the story is true (I'm not sure on that), it is usually told in a way that makes the Indians sound stupid and the Europeans wily ("Manhattan island for only $24?! What a steal!"). But in the early 1600s, $24 was no small amount, first of all. Second, unless I'm mistaken, there were Indian villages on the island for quite some time afterwards. Third, I think it is misleading to describe these kind of early European-Indian treaties/agreements in terms of modern real estate transactions -- the idea of land ownership as we understand it today was novel to the Europeans as well as the Indians. To modern readers, "bought the island for $24" implies full "fee simple" ownership was purchased, and I highly doubt that was the case. My 2 cent opinion is to either tell the story in detail with the proper context and citations, or qualify it by saying it is has become a kind of "American myth", perhaps with some basis in fact, but usually told in a misleading way. Pfly 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Owns Manhattan

Does anyone know who bought Manhattan, whether it was for beads or dollars or Dutch Guilders. I believe it was orignally owned, in the European sense, by the Dutch. It then fell into English hands. There is a legend that the owner was one Robert Edwards, who left it to his descendants who live in Wales. There is also mention that Queen Anne left it to the Catholic Church. I think it was leased for 100 years, the lease finally expired in 1877. Does the Catholic church now receive the rent? Does anyone know?

[edit] Prince, Manhattan

If anyone knows anything about the location known as "Prince", I have just started Prince, Manhattan. Your contributions would be welcome. -- Beland 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture and the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

Under the CULTURE heading, I'm having trouble understanding why a march to commemorate the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire is the opening example of culture in Manhattan. Can anyone shed some light on this??

[edit] New panorama available

I added a new panorama of the Manhattan skyline taken from Liberty Park in New Jersey here. Feel free to add this to the article if appropriate Kevinp2 04:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)