Talk:Harlem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of New York City
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.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
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 article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority 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.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
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.
Good article Harlem was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Contents

[edit] Pictures

Does someone have a better picture for the top of the article? The view from Morningside Park doesn't seem like a good top of the article pic. Does anyone have any good pics of 125th Street, maybe w/the Apollo theater shown prominantly? OWNED BY MT

Not sure but I don't think the Harlem blog would mind if you use a photo from here: http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/thumbs.php

in fact am sure you could request a better and more current photo of 125th street. the Harlem blogs is especially focused on Harlem as is today.

Note: I am not sure this is the right place to add a note but the harlem photoblog is not a linkspam and it was added by a registered user (me)

user-name amintorres I think this link with visually enrich this page on Harlem since 100% of the images on the photoblog as based on Harlem as is today.

I will respond here before reverting the change on the main page, as I don't want to go flying over the three revert rule. What makes this photoblog encyclopedic? I am glad you, or your friend, or whoever took those snapshots, likes to share photos. Why should they be included here? The argument that they are "based on Harlem as it is today," seems pretty worthless; we have many such photos in WikiCommons and included in this article already. If people want more, they can search for them with any search engine. Uucp 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The Harlem blog is actually the work (or some at least) of Candice Hoeflinger www.candicehoeflinger.com and every single shot there is taken with a documentary approach to photography. I am not sure they should be called "snapshots" as the responsible for the site is a graduate from vcu in Richmond Virginia and has a master on media studies from the New School University here in NYC.


but this is besides the point. what makes this blog encyclopedic is te fact that a lot land-marks and important sites of harlem are displayed visualy throug the blog (and that is only one aspect of it) for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey did you know that the place where Garvey held his first public meeting is still a visible site on Harlem? take a look at this photo: http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/07/27154.php

you wrote and article on Hotel Theresa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Theresa, now follow this link : http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/07/13144.php I live in Harlem but someone who doesn't, would really appreciate if the can see visuals of an amazing place like this.

you also wrote an article on strivers row: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strivers%27_Row, the blog has so many amazing photos of the street for example: http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/04/0367.php and http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/03/3065.php and http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/03/2762.php

the renaissance ballroom - which is currently being demolished http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/02/2239.php and http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/06/15123.php

murals: http://harlemphotoblog.com/harlem/07/04/2786.php and if you take some time, am sure you will find interesting the amazing collection of churches like the Abyssinian baptist church etc. if you still think this is worthless, how is http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/ a pixel better than the Harlem blog and how is it more encyclopedic? if you want to still remove the link, thats cool... I can always email the author of the site to gather information and write a page dedicated to the blog. amintorres —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AminTorres (talk • contribs) 04:16:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Title

The new title is the right move. The rest of the job, now, is fixing the double redirects from Harlem, New York, Harlem, New York City, and Harlem, Manhattan. --Wetman 00:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Harlem is well known enough to warrant a move back to Harlem from Harlem, Manhattan.--Zimbabweed 11:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see why you would want the more specific name for an ambiguous neighborhood like "Hudson Heights," but who is going to get Harlem confused? Uucp 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

What does this mean?

Though some people call all of Upper Manhattan "Harlem", historically this is highly inaccurate; while Harlem has always historically been a large African American center, Washington Heights was formerly home to many German Jewish refugees, including Henry Kissinger. Inwood, north of Washington Heights, was formerly a vibrant Irish community

Does it mean that Harlem is defined as the area of Upper Manhattan where black people live?

I didn't write the section above, but I've seen that bit of information several times. Sometime once asked a famous Harlem writer "where do you live?" He said "Sugar Hill, but I suppose anywhere that Negroes live uptown is Harlem." Neighborhood definitions always change when their ethnic populations change.Dinopup 00:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Harlem has reasonably clear boundaries (as clear as any other NY neighbourhood at least), which is now reflected in the beginning of the article.

OWNED BY MT

[edit] Louis Sullivan?

If the name of Louis Sullivan appears among the roster of architects, how many others are incorrect too? --Wetman 2 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

I have read more than once that the Bayard building is the only Sullivan building in NYC. I do not believe there are any Sullivan buildings in Harlem, though i could be shown otherwise. McKim Mead, and White is right though. White did "Strivers' Row." Dinopup 2 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

That was my error; I must have been smoking crack when I typed Sullivan's name. He never did anything in Harlem. However the rest are all good and I can provide addresses of individual buildings if you want. uucp 5 July 2005

[edit] City College/Washington Heights

I am reverting this; City College itself lists its location as Harlem. http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/neighborhood/neighborhood_moreinfo.htm


I think the disagreement stems from two different communities (Harlem and Washington Heights) fighting for "ownership" of the lovely Hamilton Heights neighborhood, where the school is located. However, by the definition in this article and by common usage, CCNY, at 138th and Convent is in West Harlem, not Washington Heights. uucp 5 July 2005

There's no disagreement at all. None whatsoever. Self-confidence is a poor substitute for information. "West Harlem" is ignorant nonsense. The WPA Guide to New York is available in paperback. The AIA Guide to New York City is also a useful guide. I recommend either. --Wetman 6 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

(For a clear assessment of editor uucp, see his new entry Chas lee (sic) and editorial efforts, in more congenial territory, at Porn 'n Chicken. This is not someone to have a disagreement with over facts.)


Where did this nastiness and ad hominem attacks come from? The AIA guide describes City College merely as belonging to "Hamilton Heights," and does not assign it to Washington Heights or Harlem. However, Kenneth Jackson's Encyclopedia of New York City is unambiguous in stating that Washington Heights does not start until 155th Street (which is also the common definition of the neighborhood). Michael Henry Adams's encyclopedic Harlem Lost and Found includes CCNY, as does the New York Landmarks Conservancy in Touring Historic Harlem. Sorry, but I don't have the WPA guide handy. The name suggests, however, that it dates to the 1930s and is perhaps not the best guide to current neighborhood boundaries.

I have now cited four sources, including the school itself, as placing the intersection of 138th Street and Convent Avenue in Harlem, and I will reinsert the reference to CCNY to this page.

As for your complaints about the Chas Lee entry, if you would like to edit it, please do so. However, your insinuation that it is not accurate is petty. I defy you to point out even one error in the entry. uucp 5 July 2005

Work the references into the text and list them as References at the bottom. Kenneth Jackson is certainly worth actually quoting: that will most effectively silence my carping. --Wetman 6 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

[edit] Audubon Ballroom in Harlem or/and Washington Heights

Isn't the Audubon Ballroom really in Washington Heights? Maybe this is part of the blurriness of the distinction between Harlem and other parts of upper Manhattan. Just throwing that out there for your consideration.

Michael 9 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)


You are right; the Audobon Ballroom is in Washington Heights. I'll make the edit. Uucp 04:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem Globe Trotters

No mention at all of these guys in the article - not even a link? Commking 16 September 2005

Despite their name, the Harlem Globetrotters are not native to New York City; they were actually founded in Chicago, and took the name only because it would symbolize their status as an all-black team. In fact, I don't believe they even played a game in Harlem until the 1970s or so. Funnyhat 02:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree; I know nothing about the early history of the team, but it is clear that they haven't been based in Harlem or played in Harlem for a long, long time. They have made no imprint on the community. The athlete most closely associated with Harlem is the boxer Joe Louis, with boxer Sugar Ray Robinson probably the second. I see no need to mention them in the main Harlem listing. Harlem will presumably be mentioned in their entries, and they both appear in the listing for the Hotel Theresa. Uucp 10:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People

How about a list of people from, or who currently live in , Harlem. Boxers Joe Louis and Sugar Ray Robinson are mentioned above. There are a number of musicians. I think Charlie Rangel is the congressman.

That's an interesting idea. Both Louis and Robinson are dead now, and neither were actually from Harlem, though they spent a lot of time there in their years of greatest success. (1) Alexander Hamilton and (2) James Audobon were both Harlemites. A number of NAACP-types lived in Sugar Hill through the 1960s, including (3) Thurgood Marshall. (4) Langston Hughes lived on East 128th, very near the home of the (5) Collyer Brothers. Many figures of the Harlem Renaissance were transient, visiting Harlem a lot but not necessarily living there, but (6) James Van Der Zee lived in Harlem for sure. (7) Madam C. J. Walker and her daughter (8) Aaliyah (sp?) Walker lived in Harlem, though Madam C. J. left when she got wealthy. Bill Clinton's commerce secretary, (9) Ron Brown, grew up on 125th Street. The problem is that, as Harlem fell apart, people who were celebrated tended to leave, so there aren't a whole lot of famous modern day Harlemites. I think (10) Rangel does live in the neighborhood, but I couldn't tell you where. The only other famous modern local I can think of is (11) Marcia Gay Harden. You want to start with that? Uucp 12:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Harlem ?

I know that there was a large Irish population in Harlem in the early 20th Century. It is mentioned in The Survey Graphic, 1925, and James Baldwin refers to what must have been the remnants on Irish street gangs in the neighborhood when he was growing up. Does anybody know details? 216.223.55.126 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

malclm x also refers to it in his autobiography, dutch, germans, irish, italians, then jews.--Juju 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Harlem ?

Italian Harlem as an Italian American enclave was devastated by the building of Franklin Plaza. The residents were sold out by the local politicians and property owners. It was truly a stake through the heart of the neighborhood. Many people promised apartments there never got them. A good portion of East Harlem's displaced residents settled in Throggs Neck between the years 1955-1965.

Italian Harlem today: Still home to fifty thousand Italian Americans, Italian Harlem was largely intact in 1950. By 1960, fewer than sixteen thousand Italian Americans resided in East Harlem. The 1990 Census shows only 918 Italian-Americans living in Italian Harlem. Most of these predominantly older residents are clustered around Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, where in a ten-block area (stretching from East 114th Street to East 118th Street and from Second Avenue to Pleasant Avenue) the remaining typical social clubs and business still operate. Rumor has it, the movie "The Young Savages", Burt Lancaster and Deana Merrill, was loosely based on the "Italian Dukes" from the 1950s.jbutera 02:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Pleasent Ave. was most definitely an Italian neighborhood. I don't think it was called "Italian Harlem" though. It was just one of many "little Italy" neighborhood in the city that faded in the post war suburban housing boom. futurebird 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem Boys Choir

I haven't heard of this, is this real? If it is, awesome. Let's edit it.

My grandfather was in this and I live in Harlem right now. you should really make an article about this because it is something really important to many families in Harlem.
It would be nice to make an article, but it should be its own, not a subset of the Harlem article. And any article should mention the scandals with the organization too -- a choir master was arrested for sexually abusing boys at the school, and I think the founder had to step down as president of the organization because of some kind of financial impropriety. This was all a few years ago and I can not remember the details.
Actually, their troubles are ongoing. The organization was just kicked out of its studio by City Hall last week.--Pharos 19:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Photos

I am glad that we have new photographs on the page, but these are all rather dim, and the streets are full of garbage in several. It would be nice to replace some with others that show the neighborhood more attractively. Uucp 15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem Prices

I've been living in New York since I was born, and there is absolutely no way that people paid higher prices for an apartment in Harlem than they did in the rest of Manhattan. I'm going to take that price comparison out of the article because although several Harlem landlords were indeed white, they couldn't rent to anyone else other than blacks due to the high crime rate of Harlem (and Manhattan in general until the Giuliani Administration) - 162.84.235.208 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim is from the 1920s. I restored the claim, but added: [citation needed] -- Petri Krohn 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I presume you didn't notice the extensive references at the bottom of the page Uucp 14:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have, and I don't see where these supposedly higher prices are. It seems illogical that a black family would continue to live in Harlem at higher prices, in a more dangerous neighborhood than in one of the areas that they could have been accepted, such as the Greenwich Village for example. Additionally, if I have understood this correctly, the first note points either to a Survey conducted in 1925, or a website called "My Harlem Reverie" which I personally don't find to be the most reputable website around since it is a clearly biased tribute towards Harlem. - 162.84.235.208 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Every academic source agrees that Harlem was more expensive than the rest of manhattan, as do countless contemporary texts. Details are given in dollars and cents in this article, and footnoted. You may find this surprising, but it is true. Blacks could not live elsewhere, as landlords would not rent to them. They were arriving in New York by the tens of thousands. More demand without increasing supply = higher prices. Uucp 05:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I hate to sound caustic here, but could you point out to me these several texts? My father is a (minor) Harlem landlord and a Professor at CU uptown where we live. I've never heard of this, and neither has he. - 162.84.235.208 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It's already footnoted to Osofsky 1963, and frankly the phenomenon is discussed in almost every book about Harlem that I have ever read. Why don't you do some homework rather than complaining because you find this surprising? Also, of what relevance is your father's job is unless he happens to teach New York history or African American history? His status as a landlord is irrelevant unless he was one in the time period from 1920-1960 (approx) when the phenomenon in question occurred.
p.s. the Survey Graphic is a famous magazine which dedicated an issue to the Harlem Renaissance in 1925. You should be able to find back issues in the Columbia libraries. Uucp 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet you still refuse to provide me with a link. The only thing I've attempted to do is explain my reasoning, and you have just snapped at me for no apparent reason. Please provide me with evidence, as the Survey Graphic spans nearly a decade, and is indeed biased since it was written for African Americans living in Harlem. I'm not complaining, simply asking a question. If you don't feel the need to give me an answer, then don't tell me to "go do my homework" as you clearly haven't done your own.
First you tell me to reference the sources at the bottom of the page; none of which are accessable online. Then you respond that I should "be pleased that I have learned something new" when you haven't provided me with the one damned source. I'm not attempting to insult Harlem in any way given the fact that I lived there, but I frankly don't see where you are telling me to look. Perhaps I'm blind. 70.23.226.147 04:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of your graphic surveys, currently I find this online: http://etext.virginia.edu/harlem/JohMakiF.html - This article describes how Blacks bought property in loads from Whites. From this article that you have quoted, Blacks indeed do not sound disenfranchised. 70.23.226.147 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Since your last complaints, I have provided an additional citation demonstrating that the pricing phenomenom continued until at least the mid-1960s. Your complaint that the sources are not online confuses me. If you live in Harlem, walk to the Schomburg Center on 135th and Lenox, which should have every book cited here, and hundreds of others that you will find of interest. Uucp 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously not something still ongoing, though. A quick look at online list prices shows some studio apartments and even one bed one bath apartments, going for $1000 or less rental (no clue if this is weekly or monthly, as the apartment listing aggregation site I was looking at for some reason does not feel the need to clarify that. Clearly they have not conceived of the possibility that someone who has never rented an apartment before might be attempting to use the site to compare prices on their first one. *siiigh*). I saw a studio apartment going for $975 - with hardwood floors (the $1000 one also had a renovated kitchen, and came with a dishwasher and microwave, IIRC; both were supposed to come with 24-hour doorman, elevator and laundry/dry-cleaning service, pet friendly and including of course air conditioning). Comparable apartments in other areas, particularly Manhattan up by the theatre district, have studio apartments of less than 400 sq. ft going for several hundred dollars more; other, comparable one bed one bath apartments seem to range from $1300 to $1800, though this could be just the handful I'm looking at from the first page. But still. It seems like the higher prices in Harlem are a thing of the past, slightly. Probably because blacks are allowed to rent from other neighborhoods now and because of the reputation of a high crime rate in the area (well, that, and presumably it's more oh-so-special to be living "five blocks from the Theatre District", Times Square, or the like). If you want to verify or refute my brief, casual survey, the site I used was "ForRent.com", which I found through a Google search for "New York City apartment". Runa27 08:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Brooklyn or Queens apartments can be slightly cheaper depending on who you're buying from, and I would assume, the amenities they provide; a 1 bed 1 bath from one renter in either of those two neighborhoods = $1100, whereas a 1 bed 1 bath in Harlem from a different renter is $1300. Hmm... Runa27 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If you read the article, it describes a phenomenon that lasted from about 1920 until about 1970. Apartment listings in 2006 are of no relevance. Uucp 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar Hill

Sugar Hill straddles the Central and West Harlem border. We currently have it assigned to Central Harlem, but I'm thinking about moving it to West. I'm curious if others have opinions on this. Uucp 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map?

Could a map be provided of where Harlem is? De mortuis... 13:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I too think a coloured map will be usefull. A map with the improtant streets and parks which border Harlem with the other neighborhoods. I tried bordering Harlem with google maps using the boundaries given in the first paragraph, but with no success. Thanks, Yonidebest 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have drawn a map. Comments welcome. Uucp 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The map looks very nice, but due to the very large file size/dimensions, it's not showing up in the article (for me). I am resizing it and re-uploading it. I'm uploading to Wikimedia Commons - commons:Category:Harlem, where I'm putting all my Harlem images. The new file is Image:Harlem_map2.png -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghettoification

Is this really an appropriate term to be use?

I agree that there is an incredible bias in this article. It seems to read like a narrative that says "Everything was nice in Harlem and then the black people moved in and it became a slum, but now it is gettting better." This article boarders on being racist.

The tone that I actually gathered when reading it, was one that seemed to blame racism as the cause for all the problems in black Harlem. "Not suprisingly, with the economic problems, Harlem has been associated with high crime". As racist elements against blacks were discussed in earlier paragraphs. This is misleading because, basically every mostly black neighborhood in the United States has high crime rates. Peoplesunionpro 17:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this seems more like racist propaganda against blacks than an encyclopedia article on the history of Harlem-Blackmachismo131 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is too much bias in the article. Please clean this up. 74.33.122.232 (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crime in Harlem

A recent edit by Skywriter states that Harlem was not considered full of crime by those who lived there. This is, to me, a surprising claim. Black writers from the 1920s to the 1980s wrote extensively about crime in Harlem. Claude "Manchild in the Promised Land" Brown describes blacks coming home from work and "staking out" their buildings to see if there was anybody waiting to jump them in the lobby. Langston Hughes wrote essays about the forces driving black youth to crime. Malcolm X spoke often and in great detail about the criminal lifestyle in Harlem. Francis Ianni wrote an entire book on the topic, based on interviews with black and hispanic criminals who lived there.

It's no surprise that blacks thought Harlem was full of crime, because it *was* full of crime. This very article provides detailed statistics on property crimes and crimes against people, demonstrating that fact.

I'm not sure why Skywriter thinks it is biased to say that people thought of Harlem as a place full of crime, so I'm not sure what change s/he would like. I'll leave this as is for now, to give others a chance to come up with phrasing that they view as inoffensive but accurate. Accurate means that (1) it should not deny the high crime rate in Harlem, and (2) it should not state that blacks thought the crime rate was low. If nobody comes up with anything, I'll try it myself. Uucp 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Uucp-- Thanks for having the courtesy of engaging the discussion.

I sense a depressing bias to this article that is both offensive and not recognizable to people who live in Harlem. The choice of facts alone is itself a viewpoint. Here's an example--

Since the arrival of blacks in Harlem, the neighborhood has suffered from unemployment rates higher than the New York average, and high mortality rates as well. In both cases, the numbers for men have been consistently worse than the numbers for women. Infant mortality was 124 per thousand in 1928 (twice the rate for whites).[15] By 1940, infant mortality in Harlem was 5% (one black infant in twenty would die), still much higher than white, and the death rate from disease generally was twice that of the rest of New York. Tuberculosis was the main killer, and four times as prevalent among Harlem blacks than among New York's white population.[15] A 1996 study reported that 15-year-old black women in Harlem had a 65% chance of surviving to age 65, about the same as women in India. Black men in Harlem, on the other hand, had only a 37% chance of surviving to age 65, about the same as men in Angola. Infectious diseases and diseases of the circulatory system were to blame, with a variety of contributing factors including the deep-fried foods traditional to the neighborhood, which may contribute to heart disease.

And why is all this true? The only attempt at an answer blames the people living there (fried food).(!)

It is curious that the sole mention of racism on the page is in the context of how racism is allegedly not the problem, at least, with regard to property ownership.

It is important to be honest about crime and crime stats. It is also important to be honest about what gives rise to crime and unemployment, poor health, morbidity and mortality rates. While what you say above in this thread is true, it is also true that there is a truth about Harlem that the mere recitation of crime stats does not capture.

"Since the arrival of blacks in Harlem, the neighborhood has suffered from unemployment rates higher than.." implies unemployment is the fault of the people who live there and not of discrimination in every aspect of life. This is a viewpoint the people living in Harlem and other long de facto segregated communities do not share. It is not a mere statement of fact. It is a picking and choosing of facts to portray a negative image of a people. It is one side of a many faceted story.

I think the phrasing of the article is studiously neutral. How does "the neighborhood has suffered from X" blame anybody for X? Your complaint seems to be that you would like to see some kind blame added to the text, but this is contrary to the intent and spirit of Wikipedia. If you want to assign blame, by all means create your own webpage outside of Wikipedia and argue it there. Uucp 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Uucp, you have also suggested removing the insights by David Levering Lewis, and someone actually deleted them entirely. I won't try further to stop you from doing this, at least not now, except to say that the exclusion of viewpoints that differ from the dominant POV presented in this article is both discouraging and depressing. You sent a thoughtful note saying you have copyright concerns. There is complexity to that argument that could be argued either way. Note, for now, that there is no copyright claim on that page, or on any other in that series. This is unlike other PBS pages. I suspect the reason is that these are straight interviews, without embellishment, explanation, or text contribution by the interviewers. The words belong to the people who uttered them. But that is speculative. The specifically relevant section is as follows (from http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_faqanswers.html#usecontent )

I want to use PBS Online content (images, text, etc. from the Web site). Can I do that? A. It depends on what you want to use and for what purpose. For using images, text, or other content from a PBS Program Web site for online or print publication, please send your request to the producers of that Web site, who have the authority to grant permission or can direct you to their original source. You can find PBS program producer contact information on our Program Contacts list. If the program is not listed, look for contact information on the program site itself or e-mail PBS Online. Be sure to include the exact address of the web page on which the content you want is located.

Either you or I could write to the producers for a specific answer, or the different parts of that section could be pulled apart, and inserted elsewhere, or deleted entirely as was done previously.

PBS reserves copyright in many cases. I have e-mailed the people at WNET responsible for the interview you pasted into this article and asked them for permission. But even if they do allow it, I think that the format in which you added the information is not particularly clear. The various quotations, or the facts within them, ought to be distributed through the article where the subjects they address appear. Uucp 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked: "Would you like to rework it, to put the various quotations in context and remove irrelevant material, or shall I?" Reply: You obviously have a vision about this, and a vision for the unity of the article. Therefore, please do as you wish. It is your opinion that his comments need "context" and that "irrelevant material" should be removed. I don't share that view. Skywriter 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll get around to it. Uucp 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The new lead is an improvement. Skywriter 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Crime section currently does not meet standards of neutral point of view (i.e. "not surprisingly"), verification, and citation. It is difficult to recommend a new sentence based on previous posts suggesting changes to the Crime section needing to be made, but perhaps we might settle on a sentence that is neutral and proven in the meantime? violetpixie 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintonamy (talk • contribs)


[edit] changes by anonymous editor at 160.39.240.81

An anonymous editor at IP address 160.39.240.81 made a number of changes, with some challenges in his editing comments. I have reverted some of this, changed a bit more, and am explaining here.

1. 160.39.240.81 wants to change the discussion of the current gentrification of Harlem by saying that the change is the same as the rest of New York has experienced. Though (a) it is true that much of New York is enjoying, for example, lower crime rates, few neighborhoods have seen the swing that Harlem has, and very few have seen the huge change in commerce and residential life that Harlem has. (B) this is not an article about the rest of New York. And (c) after previous edit wars over this section, I think it is important to make clear that the current economic and demographic changes in Harlem do not resemble the "Harlem Renaissance" of the 1920s and 1930s. I reverted this change.

2. 160.39.240.81 deleted the discussion of the "Excess mortality in Harlem," saying he didn't believe it. The article is real, though the text should have cited it as 1990, not 1996. I restored the original text, corrected that error and moved the citation from the general "references" section at the bottom into a footnote.

3. 160.39.240.81 states that there is no more diesel in Harlem than elsewhere. This is wrong. Because of the large department of sanitation garages and other facilities in Harlem, there is more diesel there, and more particulate matter in the air. I have rephrased 160.39.240.81's text accordingly.

The change to Ralph Ellison's line about Harlem is debatable; I'm pretty sure he was being wry, but I doubt anybody could prove it, so I'm not going to make a change.

Uucp 00:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Very nice article - it was a joy reading it. I have promoted it to GA status. I think you actually have something reasonably close to an FA, although the article is probably not comprehensive yet. I'm not sure what else should be covered, but there is likely more ground to cover before getting to FA status. One thing I did notice about the article is that it does not seem consistent in the way it talks about races. This is not a show-stopper for GA status, but could be a problem in applying for FA status. For example, there is a lot of usage of the terms "blacks" and "whites", but also more formal mentions of "African Americans" and so on. I'm not sure what the politically correct terms are, but I suggest applying a single standard to the entire article. Great work! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to see others appreciate this article; it was in a sorry state as recently as May 2005, and has been a frequent target of racist and ideological vandals. I have put a lot of time into this this article, and here are my thoughts on what additional work ought to be done before any try for Featured Article status.
1. Uniform terms, as suggested. Personally, I strongly favor "black" over "African American," especially as many of the blacks in Harlem are from the Caribbean, or lack U.S. citizenship. Rather than waste time trying to explain this, and showing the evolving percentages over time, better just to say "black".
2. The discussion of Activism in Harlem lacks structure; it is a list of facts and dates without any driving narrative.
3. I think we still need some better photos.
4. Some additional statistics on recent changes in the neighborhood would be good. We don't really have anything on the economics of Harlem except for some housing data from 2000. Employment numbers and more recently housing and retail numbers would be nice.
5. Convert some of the general references at the bottom into proper footnotes.
6. Make sure all the linked landmarks have complete pages, even if stubs for now.
7. Maybe expand the paragraphs on religion into their own section.
Uucp 17:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Crime Rate

Anonymous editor 24.193.107.57 has asserted that crime rates have been increasing in Harlem in 2005 and 2006, and cites specific categories of crime in two police precincts as evidence. There are six police precincts in Harlem; I have checked them all and the total two year (year to date) changes in total crimes appear below:

  • 23rd Precinct: -14.5%
  • 25th Precinct: -4.4%
  • 26th Precinct: -1.5%
  • 28th Precinct: +23.2%
  • 30th Precinct: -12.1%
  • 32nd Precinct: +1.5%

The 28th Precinct is the only one that shows a significant increase in crime, and it is one of the smaller precincts, by total crimes reported. I see nothing to support an assertion that crime has been increasing in Harlem as a whole. I don't think that a detailed analysis of the sort above would be of interest in the main text, so I have removed 24.193.107.57's text entirely. Uucp 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime Statistics

I have made further changes to the crime section based upon new data and a simple fact check. The original text asserted that the crime rate in Harlem in 2005 was "comparable" to that of wealthy neighborhoods in cities like Santa Monica. Two links appeared as citations: first, a website listing 2004 crime statistics for Santa Monica, which for a population of roughly 88,000 lists 4 murders, 21 rapes, and 241 robberies; and second, the NYPD's 32nd Precinct CompStat report for the year 2005, which lists 8 murders, 35 rapes, and 384 robberies in a population of about 61,000. Note that the national crime rate, listed on the Santa Monica statistics webpage, is a little under 7 murders, 35 rapes, and 196 robberies for every 100,000 people.

There are two big problems with this comparison. First, Santa Monica has a 33% larger population than the 32nd Precinct, yet it had half the murders and substantially less rapes and robberies--and this does not count property and other non-violent crimes. The 32nd Precinct had substantially more violent crime than the national average as well.

Second, more egregiously, the article on Harlem concedes that its historical boundaries encompass West and East Harlem as well, whereas 32nd Precinct only covers upper Central Harlem. Let's consider all of the Precincts that make up Harlem and list by population, murders, rapes, and robberies for 2005, and compare with Santa Monica:

So these precincts in Harlem have a total population of roughly 327,000 people, with 2005 murders at 41, 2005 rapes at 144, and 2005 robberies at 1806. From these numbers, we may draw two conclusions. First, Santa Monica's violent crime rate ranks below the national average, but Harlem's violent crime rate ranks far above the national average. Second, if by "comparable" we mean to connote robust statistical similarity with just a reasonable degree of error, the city-by-neighborhood comparison is invalid. For 2005, Harlem has about 3.7 times the total people, but 10.25 times the murders, 6.86 times the rapes, and 7.5 times the robberies.

It is for this reason I deleted the invalid comparison and the links. If this is in any way invalid, please discuss--perhaps I am missing something, and I look forward to hearing views. DMWishnow 11:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you examine only three categories of crime, and ignore the categories in which the crime in Harlem is lower than in Santa Monica? Uucp 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I went back and parsed out the data. Additional categories of crime for 2005 include aggravated/felony assault; burglary; grand larceny; and grand larceny auto. Here is the data, again with population figures, in the order of violent crime listed:

So for 2005, Santa Monica, for a population of 88,400, had 4 murders, 21 rapes, 241 robberies, 285 felony assaults, 788 burglaries, 2286 cases of grand larceny, and 422 auto thefts. Harlem, for a population of roughly 327,000 people, had 41 murders, 144 rapes, 1806 robberies, 1267 felony assaults, 788 burglaries, 1729 cases of grand larceny, and 413 auto thefts.

The result? In 2005, Harlem has about 3.7 times the total people, but 10.25 times the murders, 6.86 times the rapes, 7.5 times the robberies, 4.45 times the felony assaults, the same number of burglaries, .76 times the cases of grand larceny, and .98 times the auto thefts.

I believe the spirit of the original comparison was to accentuate how the renaissance of Harlem since the early 1990s has resulted in an increased standard of living concomitant with a low rate of crime that favors comparably with predominantly white, wealthy cities elsewhere that are commonly thought of as excellent places to live. I would argue that this argument is sustainable in a statistical sense only if you focus on _property crimes_ -- that is, burglaries, grand larcenies, auto theft, because only in these three categories does SM beat out Harlem. Indeed, because property crimes are so high in SM, it bumps up overall citywide crime statistics to 4,047 in 2005, versus Harlem's 6,188--still less in absolute terms, but in proportional terms more.

However, if we examine crimes against the _person_ then, as the above breakdown demonstrates, Harlem is a much more dangeorus place to live. Proportionally, more people were murdered, raped, robbed, and assaulted in Harlem than in SM during 2005. Why did I focus on these violent crimes as opposed to only property crimes? Look at the text itself, Uucp.

"...with the end of the "crack wars" and with the initiation of aggressive policing under mayor Rudolph Giuliani, crime in Harlem plummeted. In 2000, only 1,700 robberies were reported. There have been similar changes in all categories of crimes tracked by the New York City Police Department.[40] In the 32nd Precinct, for example, in Central Harlem, between 1993 and 2004, the murder rate dropped 68%, the rape rate dropped 70%, the robbery rate dropped 60%, burglary dropped 81%, and the total number of crime complaints dropped 62%."

Thus the text itself recites statistical drops in robberies, murders, and rapes--crime categories where there is no valid basis of comparison--in addition to burglaries (strange that it did not mention GL and GLA--these are where SM really does beat out Harlem!) in order to build up to the argument that in 2005 crime was "comparable to that in wealthy neighborhoods in other American cities," which is the last sentence in the paragraph.

If you insist on making the comparison, then the text ought to make a distinction between property crimes and violent personal crimes. The preceding argument in the text focuses on violent personal crimes, and this must be changed so as to not induce deceptive claims about criminal parity. Intuitively, most people associate Harlem with violent personal crimes--murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults, and the resulting comparison can only be called acceptable if you insist on examining either aggregate crime statistics or purely property crimes. Finally, a question for you, Uucp: many readers--dare I say most readers--of the Harlem Wiki entry will not be familiar with the NYPD precinct system. The only citation given to support the original argument for Harlem was a link to the 32nd Precinct CompStat breakdown, which is not even the most violent precinct--that honor belongs to 23rd Precinct. How can this citation possibly be fair when Harlem encompasses other precincts? I believe the original author was not aware Harlem had more precincts, simply got away with a sloppy edit, or was deliberately trying to obscure.

In any case, the empirical evidence does not support the statuo quo text in the entry. I see you restored the text. I hope we can agree to change it now. DMWishnow 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion; I want to go check whether the borders of the listed precincts line up with the borders of Harlem (I think the 32nd had been chosen in the article because it was so obviously entirely within the bounds of the neighborhood, and maybe also because it has not been at the front of the gentrification curve, and therefore avoids the charge that it reflects a neighborhood that is somehow "no longer Harlem"). I would also like to check for data from identical sources; I am bothered by the fact that the crime statistics being compared come from different law enforcement organizations and may reflect different definitions of crime categories. Your idea of distinguishing between categories of crime in the text seems reasonable, though I am wary of the claims that "most people associate Harlem with violent personal crimes" unless you have a good basis for saying so. Uucp 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to have sparked a useful discussion! I do not think you will find much variation in crime statistics for categories of violent personal crimes, however. You might find some variations based upon property crimes, but if the Santa Monica statistics listed on the original citation are self-reported from the police department of that city, then that is a show stopper. Even the FBI uses self-reported police department crime statistics in its national aggregated database. The quotation you cite was a personal assertion and I do not have empirical evidence (e.g., public opinion polls) to back it up. In any case, I am confident we can find a more robust point of comparison for the issue of crime. DMWishnow 05:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are certain facts that should be accounted for when comparing crime rates which are nothing more then raw numbers. You must interpret them. It is a fact that Harlem does have high rates of violent crime. This is due to the high concentration of poverty in the area. Most murders are an end result of ongoing disputes. Some are completely random, again dispute related. From bumped shoulders to stare downs. The vast majority of robberies are completely random, most of which are not even reported. The same can not be said for wealthier areas with much higher report rates. Felony assaults in Harlem most often involve weapons. Usually firearms or bladed instruments. Most burglaries in Harlem are commercial. Harlem is largely made up of apartment buildings with security features like iron bars on reachable windows, multiple locks on doors, and guards on windows with access to fire escapes. Burglary is difficult to accomplish from a residence in Harlem. Most people in the area take the subway. Car theft is a problem in Harlem but most do not own a car. At the same time security features on vehicles have advanced in recent years. G.L.A.'s are down significantly across the nation. The biggest problem among vehicles in Harlem is breaking and entry which is classified a misdemeanor and does not make the released stats. Finally Harlem has a very significant amount of crime for a small geographical area. I would not compare Harlem to Santa Monica. Harlem is a significantly more violent area. Also comparisons to the crack epidemic are difficult. For one, more people live from gunshot and stab wounds today. Advances in medicine as a result of modern conflicts. Two, during the crack epidemic most murders were drug related. If you were to take the number of felony assaults (shooting and stabbing victims) now over disputes not related to drugs it would be comparable to early 90's Harlem. Still significantly higher then the national average. The fact is, violent crime is still a serious problem in the community despite declines versus peaks during the crack epidemic. Unless most of the poverty is displaced, crime will continue to be a problem in the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[1] 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.)[2] Since the 1920s, various groups have demanded reparation payments to be made to black Americans[3]; 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[4] 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[4] — which should follow the ref tag. This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.[5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Move to Harlem, New York

Please give consensus on this proposed move:

  • Strongly Oppose This Harlem is a lot more famous than Harlem, Montana and its namesake in the Netherlands. I can't imagine anybody who types "harlem" and gets this page is very confused by that. Uucp (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)